Believing that the "Credit Secret" plug-in inserted a link and jumped on Baidu.com, Baidu sued the operator of a network technology company to the court and filed an application for conduct preservation. Recently, the Haidian court issued a conduct preservation ruling, ruling that a network technology company immediately stopped the following behavior: inserting a link in the Baidu network page through the "credit secret" plug-in, a floating window that blocked Baidu network appeared after the user clicked on the inserted link, and then clicked the link in the floating window and jumped to other websites.
Baidu company said that found that when the user installed the "credit secret" plug-in, in the search result page obtained by entering the search keyword, there is a "credit secret" icon on the right side of the title of each search result, and the "water drop" icon appears at the name of the enterprise in the search results page, and the user clicks on the above icon after the relevant floating window that obscures Baidu network, which contains the enterprise information about the website operator or the searched enterprise; after the user further clicks the "enterprise panorama information" in the floating window, It will jump directly into the droplet credit network operated by the respondent.
Baidu believes that the above-mentioned acts have undermined the normal operation of Baidu products, seriously damaged Baidu's legitimate interests, damaged the pure ecology of users' access to information, and constituted unfair competition. Failure to take conduct preservation measures will cause irreparable damage to Baidu's legitimate rights and interests, and at the same time, taking conduct preservation measures will not cause damage to the legitimate interests of the respondent, nor will it harm the public interest, so an application for act preservation is submitted.
In the process of organizing the hearing, a network technology company argued that the plug-in involved in the case did not destroy the normal operation of Baidu's search service, did not plunder Baidu's users and traffic, and did not constitute unfair competition; in addition, there was no inducement of users and other behaviors, did not harm the rights and interests of users; the plug-in involved in the case did not affect the order of market competition, and did not reach the situation that required judicial intervention. The company also denied the need for preservation.
Based on the evidence in this case and the statements of both parties, the court held that after the plug-in involved in the case was installed, the user was likely to be disturbed by the numerous and obvious inserted links on the search results page, so that they were attracted to click on the inserted links, and then led to other websites, affecting the user's choice and experience of using Baidu. The large number of inserted links obviously exceeded the necessary limit, changed the original page display of Baidu Network, and the floating window that appeared after clicking on the inserted link, which blocked the original page content of Baidu Company in a large area, hindered the normal operation of Baidu Network, and affected Baidu Company's user traffic, trading opportunities, economic interests, etc.
The court also held that if the act preservation measures are not taken in a timely manner, it may cause irreparable damage to Baidu's business opportunities and competitive advantages; moreover, what is prohibited by the act preservation measures is the applied act itself, and does not prohibit the normal operation of other legitimate functions of the plug-in involved in the case, nor will it affect the respondent's legitimate operation of its products through legal means; at the same time, the act preservation measures are obviously conducive to ensuring that users can use Baidu's relevant services according to their subjective wishes. It will also not adversely affect the public interest of society.
Based on the above factors, the court ruled that a network technology company should immediately stop being applied for.
At present, the two sides have not yet indicated whether they will reconsider the conduct preservation ruling.