On December 3, 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a public judgment on a second instance of electronic map copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute. 

Appellant

Beijing NavInfo Technology Co., Ltd.

Appellee

Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Xiuyou Technology Co., Ltd., Leador Space Information. 

The second-instance judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court revoked the first-instance judgment and sentenced Qihoo Company and Xiuyou Company to publicly apologize to NavInfo and eliminate the impact; Qihoo Company, Xiuyou Company, and Leador company jointly compensated NavInfo for economic losses of 10 million yuan and a reasonable expenditure of 500,000 yuan, and delivered the judgment documents to the parties.

NavInfo claimed at the first instance that NavInfo and Xiuyou signed a "Cooperation Agreement" to jointly create location services and related products, stipulating that NavInfo would provide the maps and related data required by Xiuyou. The Xiuyou company can use its own website, APP online and offline map applications, and agrees that without the written consent of NavInfo, Xiuyou Company shall not forward or resell NavInfo's data products in any form without authorization.

However, during the execution of the contract, Xiuyou Company went beyond the "Cooperation Agreement" and provided Qihoo Company with the navigation electronic map involved in the case; Qihoo Company provided the above electronic map obtained from Xiuyou Company to its business 360 website and APP without permission. The users can get the relevant services of the involved navigation electronic map; Leador Company obtained the electronic map involved in the case from Xiuyou Company, and sent the relevant website map to the Bureau of Surveying and Mapping for review without permission. The aforementioned three companies constitute infringement.

In addition, the three companies claimed to the public that the electronic map data used by Qihoo came from NavInfo and had obtained legal authorization to conduct false publicity, which violated NavInfo's legitimate rights and interests and potential business opportunities, and constituted unfair competition.

In summary, NavInfo requested the court to decide: 1. The third company immediately ceased infringement; 2. The third company issued an apology to eliminate the adverse effects; 3. The third company compensated 100 million yuan for economic losses and 1 million yuan for reasonable expenses; 4. The third company shall bear all litigation costs in this case.

The court of first instance held that the navigation electronic map involved in the case did not constitute a map work under China's Copyright Law, and the actions of Qihoo, Xiuyou, and Leador did not constitute false propaganda, nor did they constitute unfair competition. Therefore, the judgment rejected all the claims of NavInfo.

NavInfo dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting that the first-instance judgment be revoked and the judgment was changed to support NavInfo's first-instance litigation request.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that: 

01 The navigation electronic map involved in the case constitutes a map work.

The choice of features, landforms, and information points in the navigation electronic map involved in the case, and the choice of color, labeling and drawing methods for the features and landforms in the map shows the originality. Therefore, the navigation electronic map involved in the case constitutes a map work and is protected by copyright.

02 The act involved infringed NavInfo’s copyright of the navigation electronic map involved in the case.

1. The cooperative use method of Xiuyou and Qihoo exceeded the use method and scope agreed upon by Xiuyou and NavInfo. NavInfo has the authorship, reproduction, adaptation and information network dissemination rights of the involved navigation electronic map.

2. Without the permission of NavInfo, Leador's act of sending the map of "iShow China Map Website" to the national surveying and mapping department for review and obtaining the GS(2014)6071 review number, which violated NavInfo's Right of Copy towards the navigation electronics map involved in the case.

03 The behavior involved in the case violated the provisions of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

The unauthorized use of the navigation electronic map data by Qihoo Company, Xiuyou Company and Lead Company without permission seriously violated the principle of good faith and harmed the competitive advantage of NavInfo constitutes an act of unfair competition that violates Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Given that the alleged unfair competition act claimed by NavInfo is essentially the same act as the aforementioned copyright infringement, and the court has already applied the specialized law for protection, it is no longer appropriate to repeat the protection under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

04 The behavior involved in the case does not constitute false publicity.

Qihoo’s mark on the 360 Map comes from Xiuyou. This marking is the usual signature method for navigation electronic maps and is also based on the license agreement with Xiuyou, and it does not belong to false or misleading publicity. The statements issued by Xiuyou Company and Leador Company also state relevant facts, are not commercial publicity, and will not cause consumers to misunderstand. The actions of Qihoo Company, Xiuyou Company and Leador Company did not constitute false publicity.

To sum up, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment, and changed the sentence to Qihoo and Xiuyou to publicly apologize to NavInfo to eliminate the impact; Qihoo, Xiuyou, and Leador jointly compensate NavInfo for the economic loss of ten million yuan and reasonable expenditure of 500,000 yuan.