Sogou v. 360 unfair competition trial

Central News Agency, Xi'an, July 18 (Reporter Lei Kai) Beijing Sogou Information Service Co., Ltd., Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Defendant Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd., Qihoo 360 Software Co., Ltd. (Beijing) The case of unfair competition in the company today (18th) held a public hearing in the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an in Shaanxi Province. Sogou claims the two defendants 45 million yuan of economic losses and 500,000 yuan case expenses, the court said the two sides are willing to mediate.

During the court hearing, Sogou Information Company and Sogou Technology Company claimed that they were well-known enterprises engaging in Internet technology services according to law and Sogou Browser is the core software product independently developed by them. On September 22, 2013, Sogou Information Company and Sogou Technology Co., Ltd. discovered that Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. and Qihoo 360 Company provided "360 Security Guard" software to Internet users through its website www.360.cn, and "360 Antivirus 360 software and "360 secure browser" software (Qihoo Technology is the copyright owner of the three softwares, Qihoo 360 software company is the publisher of the three software), the network users running "360 antivirus "When the software scans the entire software and repairs the" suggested fix items ", the defendant automatically changes the default setting of the original Sogou browser of the network user to the default setting of 360 safe browser without the permission of the network user. In addition, the network users to set the Sogou browser as the default, "360 security guards" pop-up window prompts "a program is modifying the default browser settings", even if the network user click "allow modification", Qihoo Technology, Qihoo Three hundred and sixty-six companies are also without the permission of the network users, the default settings of the network user's original Sogou browser tampered with 360 security browser as the default settings. The plaintiffs submitted their testimony to court and presented notarized documents and screenshots in court.

Sogou information company and Sogou technology company that: the accused Qihoo Technology, Qihoo 360 companies such acts not only seriously interfere with the plaintiff Sogou browser normal operation, but also seriously affected the network users of the plaintiff Sogou browser service stability And security evaluation, at the same time, also greatly reduced the plaintiff Sogou browser user traffic, undermining the plaintiff based Sogou browser advertising revenue and operating income. In other words, the above acts of the defendant caused huge economic losses to the plaintiffs and greatly damaged the commercial reputation and reputation of the plaintiffs. It violated the basic principles of fair trade and fair competition and honesty and credit recognized by the Internet industry and not only harmed the plaintiffs' The lawful rights and interests of the Internet industry, but also disrupt the normal competitive order of the Internet industry, so sued the court to order the defendant: immediately stop unfair competition, including but not limited to stop using "360 antivirus" software to tamper with Sogou browser default settings, Stop using the "360 security guards" software tampering Sogou browser default settings; defendants for a month in a prominent position on the front page of their home, Sina, Sohu and Netease and other homepage prominent position on their unfair competition to the plaintiffs to apologize, eliminate Affected; jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 45 million; and jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for a reasonable fee of RMB 500,000 due to the expenditure in this case.

Qihoo Technology Company and Qihoo Software Company argued that plaintiff Sogou Information Co., Ltd. and Sogou Technology Co., Ltd. did not base their accusations on the accusation based on the fact that SougouExplorer.exe, which was developed by the plaintiff, successfully modified the system and verified that the default browser was modified to be 360 ​​Security Browser, there Sogou browser itself errors and Sogou browser automatically change the browser 360 security browser as the default browser two possible explanations. The plaintiff's notarial certificate can not prove that the defendant changed the default browser to 360 secure browser. Likewise, the defendant's 360 anti-virus software can not prove that the user has set the Sogou browser as the default browser and the 360 ​​safe browser as the default browser setting. Sogou browser itself is the default browser, and then repeat the default settings, this mode of operation is unconventional operation, the average user the chance of such operations with very low or not, not because of a special operation under a special environment , The defendant's behavior was found to be against the plaintiff's unfair competition. Secondly, when the plaintiff changed the default browser settings to Sogou browser, it has been verified that the changes have been successfully modified. However, the sogou browser repeatedly failed to set the pop- This proves sogou browser error itself, 360 antivirus software as an antivirus tool, its basic function is to detect system errors and repair system errors in the browser sogou error, the user through 360 antivirus software to choose to repair and restore the system By default, the defendant's behavior is a justifiable act and not an unfair competition against the plaintiff;

During the nearly three-hour trial, both the defendants stated their opinions, produced relevant evidence and held court witnesses in court through court investigation and debate.

After the final statements of the parties to the hearing, the presiding judge told both parties: "The final purpose of the people's court hearing the case is to set the stage for the dispute and promote the harmonious development of society. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are well-known Internet companies, competitors and may become Partners and strive for win-win cooperation based on voluntary and lawful principles. The court will provide both parties opportunities for court mediation and also encourage parties to mediate or settle themselves. " Both parties expressed their "willingness to mediate" in court.

The case court will make mediation according to law, and the trial of the case will continue.

After the case was accepted by the Xi'an Intermediate People's Court on September 25, 2013, Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. and Qihoo Software filed an objection to the jurisdiction of the case during the submission of the pleadings. The Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an decided on November 18, 2013 to dismiss the odd tiger Technology companies, Qihoo software company's jurisdiction objection. Qihoo Technology Company and Qihoo Software Company refused to accept the above ruling and appealed. After examination, Shaanxi Provincial Higher People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling.