Unfair competition & trade secrets · 10 Editorial guide
Unfair Competition and Trade-Secret Claims in China
Anti-unfair-competition claims, trade-secret protection and enforcement beyond registered IP rights.
First job Identify the protected business information/conduct and evidence of secrecy or competitive harm.
Start here
Key considerations
The first questions are about urgency, governance and preservation — before collection expands or interviews begin.
- Scope — Anti-unfair-competition claims, trade-secret protection and enforcement beyond registered IP rights.
- Immediate task — Identify the protected business information/conduct and evidence of secrecy or competitive harm.
- Boundary — If another practice owns a distinct issue, use Related topics below rather than duplicating that analysis here.
Direct answer
What this page decides
02
Use unfair-competition law for the conduct it actually regulates, not as a substitute whenever a trademark, patent or copyright claim is weak. Under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law effective October 15, 2025, relevant theories include source confusion involving influential commercial identifiers, false or misleading commercial publicity, commercial disparagement, trade-secret misappropriation and specified online conduct involving traffic, platforms, data or malicious transactions. The general clause requires more than perceived unfairness: identify the competitive relationship or affected market interest, recognised commercial ethics, market-order harm and why a specific statutory or registered-right rule does not already govern the conduct. A trade-secret claimant should particularise the technical or business information, show it was not generally known or readily obtainable, had commercial value and was protected by reasonable secrecy measures, then connect each respondent to improper acquisition, disclosure, use or permitted-use breach. Preserve the market conduct, actor, access path, causation and loss before notice. Administrative, civil and criminal routes have different respondents, evidence and remedies; the 2022 civil interpretation must be applied consistently with the revised 2025 statute.
At a glance
Which fact changes the next route
Use the fact that changes ownership or urgency to decide the next move.
| Question | Why it matters | Next route |
|---|---|---|
| Is a specific IP right the proper route? | Unfair-competition law should not automatically expand expired, invalid, unregistered or non-infringed exclusive rights. | Test trademark, patent, copyright, contract and sector rules before relying on a residual theory. |
| Which prohibited conduct occurred? | Confusion, false publicity, disparagement, secret taking and online interference require different proof. | Separate each act, actor, audience, channel and statutory theory. |
| What market interest was harmed? | A grievance between businesses is not by itself harm to competition order or a protected commercial interest. | Define diverted transactions, damaged reputation, impaired choice, disrupted service or lost competitive advantage. |
| What exactly is the trade secret? | Broad categories do not show secrecy, value, measures or misappropriation. | Particularise the information and compare it with what the respondent acquired or used. |
| Which forum can deliver the remedy? | Administrative investigation, civil preservation and damages, and criminal referral follow different thresholds. | Select the route only after evidence and urgency are mapped. |
Scope
What this page owns — and what it does not
Practical workflow
Action, evidence, legal gate, output
| Action | Documents / evidence | Legal gate | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Define conduct and market | Products, services, users, channels, transactions, identifiers, statements, platform functions, data and competitors | Identify the actor, audience, market mechanism and alleged harm | Conduct and market map |
| Test the legal boundary | Trademarks, patents, copyrights, contracts, advertising, platform, data and sector rules | Use the specific rule where it directly governs the conduct | Claim-routing memorandum |
| Select statutory theory | Confusion, publicity, disparagement, secret, traffic, compatibility, data or malicious-transaction facts | Match each respondent and act to provable elements | Elements and respondent matrix |
| Particularise protected interest | Influential identifier, reputation, customer choice, service operation, lawful data interest or defined secret | Separate protectable interest from ordinary competition and public information | Protected-interest specification |
| Preserve conduct and access | Full captures, transactions, statements, algorithms or settings, access logs, communications, downloads, products and custody | Use a lawful method appropriate to the intended forum | Indexed evidence package |
| Prove causation and remedy | Diversion, complaints, outages, ranking or traffic change, sales, costs, reputation, enrichment and urgency | Connect alleged conduct to measurable harm or threatened harm | Causation and remedy analysis |
| Select and operate route | Jurisdiction, preservation, administrative powers, standing, criminal indicators, confidentiality and assets | Coordinate routes without destroying evidence or exposing secrets | Action and follow-on plan |
Documents
What to gather before the next call
These items help clarify the file; they are not a legal requirement list.
| Item | Why needed | Who holds it | Risk if missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conduct and actor chronology | Separates each statement, interface, transaction, access and respondent | Business, investigators and counsel | Different theories and actors are blurred together |
| Registered-right and contract boundary file | Shows why a specific IP, contract or regulatory rule does or does not control | IP and disputes counsel | The claim improperly recreates an unavailable exclusive right |
| Market and protected-interest analysis | Identifies competition, audience, influence, reputation, choice and commercial harm | Commercial, marketing and economic teams | Unfairness is asserted without market context |
| Particularised secret schedule | Defines each item, boundary, value, owner, location and authorised access | R&D, business owner, security and counsel | The alleged secret remains an abstract category |
| Secrecy and access record | Connects reasonable measures, duties, permissions, logs and acquisition path | IT, HR, procurement and security | The information was broadly available or access cannot be linked |
| Harm and remedy file | Supports urgency, causation, loss, enrichment and requested relief | Finance, sales, operations and experts | Liability and remedy evidence do not connect |
Common failure points
Where files usually break
Adding a general unfair-competition count to every IP complaint without identifying distinct conduct and elements.
Using unfair-competition law to obtain exclusivity over an idea, function, public fact or expired right.
Claiming source confusion without proving the identifier's relevant influence, source-identifying role and likely confusion.
Calling criticism commercial disparagement without preserving the statement, speaker, audience, falsity or misleading character and harm.
Treating any collection or use of publicly accessible data as automatically unlawful without analysing method, interest and market effect.
Describing the trade secret as all technical information, all customer data or the entire business model.
Relying on an NDA while permissions, repositories, downloads and third-party disclosures remained uncontrolled.
Showing that a former employee had access but not that the respondent acquired, disclosed or used the particularised information.
Sending notice before preserving search results, platform behaviour, accounts, transactions, technical state and access evidence.
Mixing administrative, civil and criminal thresholds or citing criminal interpretations replaced in April 2025.
Disclosing the claimed secret unnecessarily in pleadings, notices or open evidence without a confidentiality plan.
Seeking broad market restraints without evidence connecting the conduct to competition-order harm and a proportionate remedy.
FAQ
Narrow follow-ups owned by this page
Can unfair-competition law protect an unregistered brand?
Potentially, where the current statutory elements for protected commercial identifiers and confusion are met. Use, influence, source-identifying function and the accused conduct require evidence; lack of registration does not guarantee protection.
Can the general clause be used whenever conduct seems unfair?
No. The civil interpretation requires a disciplined analysis of competition order, protected interests and commercial ethics, and the general clause should not displace a specific statutory or IP rule that governs the conduct.
What makes information a trade secret?
The current law requires qualifying technical or business information that is not known to the public, has commercial value and is protected by corresponding secrecy measures. Each element and the specific information must be proved.
Are online interference and data cases all the same?
No. Traffic diversion, forced redirection, incompatibility, malicious transactions, platform-rule abuse and improper data acquisition or use have distinct facts and may engage the 2025 law, 2024 network rules and other data or platform laws.
When can trade-secret conduct become criminal?
Criminal referral requires the applicable offence, conduct, knowledge, seriousness and current 2025 interpretation. A confidentiality breach or civil misappropriation does not automatically establish a crime.
Decision map
Keep the question bounded.
- Define the information or conductItemize the claimed secret or unfair practice, the commercial value, relevant market actors and the legal interest harmed beyond registered IP.
- Prove secrecy and acquisitionSecure access controls, confidentiality duties, file histories, employee or supplier movements, forensic records and evidence of unauthorized use or disclosure.
- Choose the protection theorySeparate contract, trade-secret, broader unfair-competition and criminal routes, then align each respondent and requested remedy with provable elements.
Curated resources
Open the asset that matches this job.
Anti-Unfair Competition Law revised in 2025
Official NPC text, effective 15 October 2025, including the current trade-secret definition and prohibited conduct.
SPC Interpretation on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law
Official civil interpretation addressing the general clause, competitive relationship, commercial ethics, source confusion, false publicity and other unfair-competition claims; apply with the revised 2025 law.
Interim Provisions on Online Unfair Competition
Official SAMR rules effective September 1, 2024, covering online confusion, traffic interference, data and platform conduct, enforcement and platform recordkeeping.
SPC Provisions on Civil Trade-Secret Cases
Official Supreme People's Court rules defining technical and business information, reasonable confidentiality measures, infringement, proof, preservation and remedies in civil trade-secret cases.
SPC Provisions on Evidence in IP Civil Litigation
Official Supreme People's Court rules on evidence production, preservation, controlled purchases, technical facts, documents held by the opposing party and confidentiality in IP civil cases.
2025 Judicial Interpretation on Criminal IP Cases
Current SPC and SPP interpretation, effective April 26, 2025, covering IP crimes, thresholds and calculations, accomplice conduct, evidence and penalties while replacing earlier interpretations.
Helpful to prepare
Facts that make the next conversation clearer.
These items are orientation aids, not a legal requirement list.
Evidence file
Preserve the record before the forum is chosen.
This is a preparation prompt, not a finding that any item is admissible or required.
- Official registrations, company and domain records, product packaging, interfaces and historical commercial identifiers.
- Complete advertisements, livestreams, search results, rankings, reviews, notices, statements and audience or transaction context.
- Platform rules, technical logs, traffic records, settings, compatibility tests, API or scraping records and data provenance.
- For trade secrets, a particularised schedule plus development history, non-public status, commercial value and secrecy measures.
- Employment, supplier, collaboration and access records showing duties, opportunity, acquisition, disclosure or use.
- Controlled captures, purchases, forensic images, hashes and chain-of-custody records preserving the accused conduct.
- Customer confusion, complaints, diverted sales, lost opportunities, remedial costs, reputational evidence and respondent gains.
Counsel hand-off
What to bring when you instruct
Bring the market and competitor map, registered and unregistered rights, contracts and platform terms, complete accused statements, pages, interfaces, search results, traffic or transaction evidence, affected customers and chronology, the particularised secret schedule, creation and value records, policies, access controls and logs, employment and supplier duties, forensic preservation, acquisition and use comparison, customer confusion or reputation evidence, sales, traffic, cost and loss records, desired remedy, urgency, confidentiality needs, target assets and any parallel trademark, copyright, patent, data, labour, administrative or criminal matter.
Local context
Add the city when the enforcement forum changes.
Add city or province context only when the responsible authority, court, registration practice, permit process or local implementation changes after the national route is identified.
Open city and province guidesCounsel hand-off
Need IP counsel?
This hub organises filing, secrets and enforcement routes. It does not register rights, stop a squatter or bind CNIPA on your facts.
Find IP counselLegal review
Who reviewed this guide
Subject to editorial/legal review. No reviewer is assigned to this route.
Need qualified counsel?
Move carefully. Move with a record.
Use the portal to identify counsel for this practice and related China-side issues.