Copyright Infringement Dispute over Navigation Electronic Maps

Case V: Case involving Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute over Navigation Electronic Maps

Case Brief:

Since 2002, Beijing XX Technology Co., Ltd. has been engaged in the research, development, and promotion of electronic maps, creating the 15Q4 and 16Q2 internet electronic maps (hereinafter referred to as the “rights maps”).

In 2013, Beijing XX Technology Co., Ltd. signed a Cooperation Agreement with Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd., authorizing Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. and other companies to use the rights maps until the end of 2016.

Beijing XX Technology Co., Ltd. alleged that after the Agreement expired, Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates continued to use navigation electronic maps substantially similar to the rights maps in six of their applications including Baidu Map, Baidu CarLife, and Baidu Navigation, thereby infringing on its copyright and constituting unfair competition. Beijing XX Technology Co., Ltd. sued Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. to court.

The court of first instance found that the navigation electronic maps used in the applications by Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates constituted copyright infringement. The court ordered Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates to cease the infringement, issue an apology, eliminate the negative effects, and jointly pay 64.5 million RMB in economic damages and 920,000 RMB in reasonable expenses.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates appealed.

In the second instance, the Beijing High People’s Court held that the rights maps constituted a graphic work under the Copyright Law. It was determined that Beijing YY Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates used navigation electronic maps substantially similar to the rights maps in the six applications after the Cooperation Agreement expired, as evidenced by 30 secret notes, 125 internal roads, 47 maps of the administrative area of sea expansion, and 44 model maps provided by the right holders. This constituted copyright infringement. Given that the Copyright Law already protected the lawful rights and interests of the right holders, applying Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for additional protection was deemed inappropriate.

Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the original judgment was upheld.

Typical Significance:

Data is a crucial element of the digital economy. This case serves as a typical example of protecting navigation electronic maps under the Copyright Law. It not only delves into the essential elements that constitute graphic works for navigation electronic maps but also explores the substantial similarity comparison of extensive map data, underscoring the significant role of intellectual property judicial trials in safeguarding the digital economy.