Vi Ya improperly used "Yuan Longping" in sales, "Yuan Mi" ruled as unfair competition

[2] Compiled from: Hunan High Court, Xiaoxiang Morning News
 
In the livestream of the once-popular influencer Viya, a type of rice called “Yuan Rice” was featured. To boost product sales, the host repeatedly used the name and portrait of Academician Yuan Longping.

 
 

So, is "Yuanmi" actually connected to Yuan Longping?
 
Case review
[5] To regulate the commercial use of Academician Yuan Longping's name and portrait rights, before his death, Yuan Longping signed the "Yuan Longping Brand Rights Licensing Agreement" with Longping High-Tech, obtaining the exclusive commercial rights to use his name and portrait in business activities.
 
On April 20, 2020, Longping High-Tech discovered that an agricultural company, Qianxun (Hangzhou) Culture Media Co., Ltd., Huang Wei (known online as "Viya viya"), and Taobao were suspected of infringing Yuan Longping's name rights and portrait rights. Accordingly, it applied to the Changsha Notary Public Office for notarized evidence collection to preserve evidence related to the WeChat official account, company website, and Taobao store of the agricultural company.
 
On April 23, 2020, Longping High-Tech issued a “Warning Letter” to an agricultural company, demanding that the agricultural company “immediately cease the sale of counterfeit ‘Yuan Longping’ rice and other infringing products through online channels and all other means, and remove the relevant webpages; and, without lawful authorization, refrain from using Yuan Longping’s name, portrait, trademarks, and the like for commercial promotion, or from associating related products with Yuan Longping in such promotion.” On the same day, Longping High-Tech also issued a “Warning Letter” to Qianxun (Hangzhou) Culture Media Co., Ltd., as a result of which the agricultural company’s products were suspended from live-stream sales.
 
As the agricultural company continued to use Yuan Longping's name and portrait in articles on its WeChat public account and website, Longping High-Tech filed a lawsuit.
 
The court of first instance held that the agricultural company's commercial use infringed upon the exclusive commercial licensing rights to Yuan Longping's name and portrait obtained by Longping High-Tech, and violated the principles of good faith and recognized business ethics, likely causing consumer confusion and misunderstanding and increasing the risk of mistaken purchases, thus constituting unfair competition under Article 2 and Article 6, Paragraph 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Accordingly, it ruled that the agricultural company must immediately cease its unfair competitive acts of commercially using Yuan Longping's name and portrait, and compensate Longping High-Tech 100,000 yuan for economic losses.

 

After the first-instance judgment was rendered, both parties filed appeals. On March 11, the second-instance court of the Hunan High People's Court, after trial, ruled to reject the appeals and uphold the original judgment.
 
 
Anti-Unfair Competition Law
Article 2
Business operators shall, in their production and business activities, follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, and good faith, and comply with laws and business ethics. Unfair competition acts as referred to in this Law refer to acts that violate the provisions of this Law, disrupt market competition order, and harm the lawful rights and interests of other business operators or consumers. Business operators as referred to in this Law refer to natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations engaged in the production or sale of goods or the provision of services (hereinafter goods include services).
 
Article 6
Business operators shall not engage in the following confusing acts that mislead others into believing that their goods are those of others or that there is a specific connection with others:
……
(4) Other confusing acts sufficient to mislead others into believing that the goods are those of others or that there is a specific connection with others.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
In China, Academician Yuan Longping is known as the “Father of Hybrid Rice,” and his related research achievements have made significant contributions to humanity. Academician Yuan Longping’s name and portrait have long been deeply rooted in people’s hearts and enjoy extremely high recognition. Although he is no longer with us, our respect and admiration for him remain in our hearts. When his name and portrait are used for commercial purposes, this involves not only Academician Yuan Longping’s personal interests but also public interests and related commercial interests. Therefore, all types of social entities should use them prudently and in a standardized manner.
 
In this case, an agricultural company used the name and portrait of Yuan Longping in articles promoting its products, such as seawater rice, without permission and without being able to provide evidence. This behavior clearly reflects a speculative mindset, aiming to leverage the fame of Academician Yuan Longping and the commercial value behind his name and portrait to enhance the influence and publicity of its own goods and brand, demonstrating subjective intent. Such commercial use violates the principle of good faith, disrupts the order of market competition, and breaches recognized commercial ethics, and it will inevitably be subject to legal sanctions.