Douyin sued Tencent for alleged monopoly and sparked heated debate. Before this lawsuit, Douyin had filed an unfair competition lawsuit against Tencent in 2019. At present, this case has been exposed, and there are new developments.
Unsatisfied with the court's decision on the jurisdiction that the court transferred the Tencent unfair competition case to the Shenzhen court for trial, Douyin filed an appeal with the Fujian Higher Court earlier this month. According to the "Notice of Acceptance of Cases" issued by the court, on February 19, the Fujian Higher People's Court decided to file the case for trial. The case number is (2021) Minmin Judgment No. 26.
In December 2020, the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled on the Douyin v. Tencent unfair competition case. It determined that the jurisdiction of the case should be in accordance with the WeChat and QQ developer agreements, and the ownership of the agreement should be the court where the agreement was signed. According to the subject matter of this case, the case will be transferred to Shenzhen Intermediate Court for trial.
On September 17, 2019, Douyin related operating companies filed an unfair competition lawsuit against Tencent related companies. Douyin believes that the WeChat and QQ platforms operated by Tencent restrict users from freely sharing Douyin on WeChat, WeChat Moments, QQ and Qzone through technical means. Other similar products, such as Weishi, Tencent Video, and Kuaishou, have not encountered Tencent's restrictions, so this behavior constitutes unfair competition.
Douyin asked the court to lift restrictions, eliminate the impact, and compensate 90 million yuan in damages.
However, Tencent filed a jurisdictional objection to this case. Tencent believes that the case is actually a contract dispute arising from the use of WeChat and QQ open platforms for "Tik Tok" short video products. Therefore, the case should be heard in the relevant court in Shenzhen, the place of jurisdiction agreed in the contract.
The court confirmed this. The ruling read: "According to the WeChat and QQ open platform developer agreements, if any dispute or dispute occurs between Tencent, both parties agree to submit to the court with jurisdiction where the agreement was signed for settlement." "The determining of the jurisdiction should be based on the place where the developer agreement contract is signed".
Douyin did not agree with the ruling. According to Douyin's appeal petition, Douyin believes that this case is an unfair competition dispute. The infringement claimed by Douyin has nothing to do with the WeChat and QQ open platform developer agreements' performance. The Tencent developer agreement stipulates that the jurisdiction does not apply to infringement and unfair competition. This agreement cannot be the basis for determining the jurisdiction of this case.
After the media reported the ruling of the first instance, it aroused social concern and disputes in the legal profession. According to similar cases in the past, some cases involving contractual relations were also heard by the court in unfair competition disputes, such as the former Tencent v. Duoshan case. In the aforementioned case, Tencent sued Doxan in Tianjin on the grounds that the QQ/WeChat operator was in Tianjin. The court accepted and issued an injunction prohibiting users from using WeChat avatars and nicknames in Doxan.
On February 7, Zhang Weiping, a professor at Tsinghua University Law School and chairman of the Civil Procedure Law Research Institute of the Chinese Law Society, a well-known expert on civil procedure law, discussed on this case in Beijing. Zhang Weiping believes that Douyin's claim is an anti-unfair competition claim. The lawsuit based on the anti-unfair competition claim should be governed by the infringement dispute. The Fuzhou Intermediate Court has jurisdiction and does not need to be transferred to jurisdiction.
"According to the provisions of China's Civil Procedure Law on the jurisdiction of tort disputes, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court is the court where the infringement was carried out and the result of the infringement occurred. It has jurisdiction over the case and does not need to be transferred to jurisdiction." Zhang Weiping said, "even if the court considers the plaintiff's right of claim cannot be established, and it can only be judged to lose the lawsuit. It cannot substantively exceed the claim and the corresponding legal relationship claimed by the plaintiff without legal procedures and change the jurisdiction of the case on this basis."
