[Case No.] (2020) Supreme People’s Court Zhi Min Zhong No. 1382
[Basic case] Zhang Moumou claimed that he joined the brick and tile association under the coercion of the founders of the Yibin Brick and Tile Association, Wuqiao Company, Sihe Company, and Cao Moumou, and signed the "Suspension of Production and Rectification Contract". The contract was forced to stop production; the Yibin Brick and Tile Association and its promoters signed the above-mentioned contract extensively to force some brick and tile enterprises in Yibin to suspend production, reduce the supply, increase the price, and win improper benefits; but the Yibin Brick and Tile Association and the brick and tile enterprises that still maintain production paid a small amount of support for the suspension of production and no longer paid in accordance with the agreement. The behavior precluded Zhang from participating in the competition and constituted a violation of the anti-monopoly law, so it was sued to the Chengdu Intermediate Court, requested an order for the Yibin City Brick and Tile Association, Wuqiao Company, Sihe Company, Cao Moumou, etc. to pay 336,000 yuan for economic losses and 80,000 yuan for reasonable expenses for rights protection. The Chengdu Intermediate Court held that the accused act constituted a violation of the anti-monopoly law and infringed on Zhang's rights and interests, so it ruled that Wuqiao Company, Sihe Company, Cao Moumou, and Brick and Tile Association jointly compensated 336,000 yuan for economic losses and expenses of reasonable rights protection 5,000 yuan. Wuqiao Company, Cao Moumou, and Brick & Tile Association appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court held that Zhang voluntarily participated in the horizontal monopoly agreement in this case as one of the implementers, and claimed that other implementers of the horizontal monopoly agreement should compensate him for the so-called economic losses caused by the implementation of the monopoly agreement. It was a request to divide the monopoly benefits, not the object of the anti-monopoly law's intended relief, so the judgment was annulled and all of Zhang's claims were rejected.
[Typical significance] This case clarifies the purpose and orientation of monopoly civil remedies, clarifies that the voluntary implementers of horizontal monopoly agreements are not the objects of the anti-monopoly law intended for relief, and reveals that the implementer of the horizontal monopoly agreement requires other implementers to compensate for the so-called losses caused by the implementation of the monopoly agreement, which is the essence of the division of monopoly benefits. It is of great significance for cracking down on horizontal monopoly behavior and maintaining fair competition order in accordance with the law.
