Yonchang Enterprise Corp. was accused of plagiarizing the Chinese descriptions of product features from other business’ Web site, in possible violation of the Fair Trade Law

Chinese Taipei

Case:

Yonchang Enterprise Corp. was accused of plagiarizing the Chinese descriptions of product features from other business’ Web site, in possible violation of the Fair Trade Law

Key Words:

Decreased value of goods, sales agent, multi-level sconspicuously unfair, sufficient to affect trading orderales

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of August 25, 2005 (the 720th Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition Kung Ch’u Tzu No. 094093

Industry:

Retail Sale of Photographic Equipment (4645)

Relevant Laws:

Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. The Complainant stated that Yongchang Enterprise Corp. (“Yongchang”) and the Complainant were competitors for electronic commerce of digital cameras and both marketed “SANYO Xacti C4”. The Respondent plagiarized “exactly every word” of Complainant’s Chinese descriptions of product features, including content and photos, of the aforesaid digital camera. Such features are as follows:
• 4 megapixel CCD
• 8 megapixel Camcorder
• 5.8 optical zoom lens
• High resolution DVD, MPEG-4 videos
• Digital voice recorder with stereo sound effect
• Filming and taking photos at the same time
• Flicker reduction
• Six build-in scene modes and three color modes
• 1.8-inch color, flip-out, rotating LCD screen
• Macro mode allowing you to get as close as 2 centimeters away from the subject
• Light, compact and convenient.

Such a plagiarism is certainly an extraction of the fruits of another person’s hard work, in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.

2. Upon the investigation, the Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”) found that:
   From October 26 to November 9, 2004, Yongchang published product features relating to the digital camera “SANYO Xacti C4” on its Web site under Yahoo! Kimo Shopping Web site. These features including,
   • 4 megapixel CCD
   • 8 megapixel Camcorder
   • 5.8 optical zoom lens
   • High resolution DVD, MPEG-4 videos
   • Digital voice recorder with stereo sound effect
   • Filming and taking photos at the same time
   • Flicker reduction
   • Six build-in scene modes and three color modes
   • 1.8-inch color, flip-out, rotating LCD screen
   • Macro mode allowing you to get as close as 2 centimeters away from the subject
   • Light, compact and convenient.

   The abovementioned eleven features were identical with the features that Complainant had used on Yahoo! Kimo shopping Web site since September 21, 2004. With regard to the feature “Digital voice recorder with stereo sound effect,” there were two typos of Chinese characters in the detailed description, “…when you connect SANYO Xacti C4 to a computer or TV equipped with stereo speakers, you will experience the impressive sound as if you were on the scene…” According to the Complainant, there were two typos of Chinese characters. The same mistakes also appeared on Yonchang’s Website.

3. Grounds for Disposition:
   The Complainant employed the photos, images or text descriptions on its Web site to present relevant trading information, such as the appearances, sizes, specifications, and characteristics of digital cameras, on its Web site to market its products. Therefore, the product features in question are a major way for the Complainant to pass on messages to its potential consumers. When “SANYO Xacti C4” was first introduced to Our country, there were no Chinese product descriptions on the market. In order to attract general consumers and professionals to browse the Web site, the Complainant devoted much effort in the Chinese feature descriptions of “SANYO Xacti C4.” Yonchang identically plagiarized the aforementioned feature descriptions and published such descriptions on its own Web site. This act is an extraction of the fruits of the Complainant’s hard work by using Complainant’s descriptions for the same digital camera on its own Web site to attract the same potential consumers. It is truly a conspicuously unfair act sufficient to affect trading order. The Respondent’s act also infringed upon business competition ethics, in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. In accordance with Article 36 of the Enforcement Rules to the Fair Trade Law, the FTC considered the respondent's motives, the purpose of the unlawful acts and the anticipated inappropriate profits derived from the said acts, the degree of disruption to trading order caused by the unlawful acts, the term of the acts, profits received therefrom, business scale, condition, market status, evidence of remorse. The FTC therefore, in accordance with the fore part of Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law, ordered Yonchang Enterprise Corp. to immediately cease the aforementioned unlawful act and imposed an administrative fine of $80,000 upon the said Respondent.

Summarized by Hsu, Cho-Yuan;
Supervised by Chiang, Kou-Lun

Appendix:
Yonchang enterprise corp.’s uniform invoice number: 16527395