161Thorn Hill Road
Warrendale, PA 15086-7527
TO BE USED ON AUDITS STARTING ON OR AFTER 31 January 2016
Applicable (NA) responses do not require an explanation unless
otherwise noted. There is only one plausible reason for an NA, which
is, that a particular operation or issue is not being used at the supplier.
PRI operating procedures provide that "This report is published by PRI to advance the state of technical, engineering, and quality sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising there from, is the sole responsibility of the user."
There are no N A’s simply for a lack of a customer requirement. If a
system is in use, then all questions pertaining to that system are
applicable. If verification of results require documentation it shall be so
noted in this checklist.
The audit results shall not include any customer proprietary
information. Technical information on parts which have been
designated “Export Cont rolled –License Required” (EC-LR) cannot be
input into eAuditNet. If auditors have any questions about this, they
should contact the Staff Engineer for directions.
2.1 References:
PRI Publications: Available from PRI, 161 Thorn Hill Road,
Warrendale, PA 15086-0001
PD 1100 Nadcap Program Requirements
3. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
3.1 Materials, Equipment Listing and Information
ATTACHMENT The supplier shall complete and the auditor shall review the supplier's
provided materials and equipment listing, for adequacy, content and
correctness. Attachments are for information only but shall be
completed fully. NCR’s shall not be written against attachments.
(Attachment AC7114/5-A).
YES NO
3.1.1 Is a current calibration certificate or metrology verification available for
the eddy current instrument
3.1.2 Are all probes identified, or provide traceability to, part number,
YES NO frequency, coil diameter and if the probe coil is shielded or un-
shielded?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The type and frequency may be
traceable via the part number.
3.1.3 Is/are the magnetometer/residual field indicator(s) used to verify
YES NO NA demagnetization, calibrated at a minimum of one point in the range of
use at least semi-annually?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: If yes, answer the following
question under Sub-section 3.1.3 If ferrous materials/parts are not
eddy current inspected, answer NA to this sub-section.
3.1.3.1 Does/do the field strength meter(s) have valid calibration certification? YES NO NA 3.2 Reference Standards and Documentation
3.2.1 Is documentation available for all reference standards fabricated in
YES NO accordance with Subscriber specifications?
3.2.2 For special standards, is the standard comparable to the component
YES NO NA being inspected, including surface finish?
3.2.2.1 Is there manufacturing documentation available? YES NO NA
YES NO
3.2.3 Are all standards clearly identified as to material type, notch size and
depth, etc. or traceable to documentation with noted requirements?
YES NO NA 3.2.4 Is the reference standard representative of the bearing configuration
being inspected, per technique/procedure?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: Material, inner ring verses outer
ring, spherical raceway verses flat, size etc.
YES NO
3.2.5 Are reference/calibration standards stored and handled to prevent
damage from mishandling, corrosion, pitting, etc.?
4. PROCEDURES
4.1 NDT Facility Written Procedures
YES NO
4.1.1 Is there a procedure, general or specific, for processing and inspection
using the Eddy Current testing method?
4.2 Approval
4.2.1 Does the procedure(s) indicate approval by the applicable Level 3? YES NO
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The applicable Level 3 may be the
Nadcap User, Nadcap User qualified or approved Level 3, internal
Level 3 and/or external Level 3.
4.3 Procedure / Technique
Does the written procedure, general or specific, contain the following
information as a minimum?
Compliance Assessment Guidance:
?T he term, “procedure” may be synonymous with a traveler or a route
card, automatic scan plan etc.
YES NO
4.3.1 Traceability to the name and address of the facility performing the
inspection?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: In some cases it may not be
necessary for the actual address as long as the facility is traceable to a
unique identifier.
YES NO
4.3.2 Procedure identification number and the date the procedure was
approved?
required level for the activity undertaken and the applicable contract
requirements?
YES NO
4.3.4 Does this technique/instruction include part number, material, alloy,
type relevant to the material / part to be examined?
YES NO
4.3.5 Equipment to be used for inspection, including manufacturer and model
number?
YES NO
4.3.6 Frequency, coil diameter, shielded/un-shielded and type (or part
number) of probes used?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The type and frequency may be
traceable via the part number.
4.3.7 Reference standard identification YES NO
4.3.8 Reference standard and material/part demagnetization requirements? YES NO NA 4.3.9 Use of magnetic field indicators to verify demagnetization? YES NO NA 4.3.10 Address or provide traceability to customer acceptance criteria? YES NO
4.3.11 Required standardization parameters? YES NO
Compliance Assessment Guidance: For example, minimum amplitude
settings" for notch response and "gating requirements" for flaw
detection.
4.3.12 Minimum signal to noise ratio? YES NO
YES NO NA 4.3.13 Sketches, photos, chart or procedure indicating area and coverage
and/or orientation of the material/part?
4.3.14 Does the technique/instruction include Internal Filter Setting Used? YES NO NA
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This would include any filtering
utilized for the technique / instruction, such as hi-pass, lo-pass, etc.
4.3.15 Does the technique/instruction include External Filter Setting Used? YES NO NA
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This would include any filtering
utilized for the technique / instruction, such as hi-pass, lo-pass, etc.
YES NO
4.3.16 Inspection index increments, scan speed and inspection coverage
verification method used?
YES NO
4.3.17 Acceptance requirements to be used for evaluating indications and
disposition of part(s) after examination?
4.3.18 Description for the method of identifying inspection status? YES NO
4.3.19 Method for the control of software or programming used for automated
YES NO NA processing equipment as applicable?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This would include software used
to control automated systems.
4.3.20 All required equipment standardization checks called out in section 5 of
YES NO this checklist?
5. EDDY CURRENT EQUIPMENT STANDARDIZATION
Compliance Assessment Guidance:
If a particular system is not used by the supplier, (i.e., Conductivity
Testing) then questions pertaining to that system are NA and no
explanation is required. Where equipment is not used for a period in
excess of the check frequency, the check shall be performed
immediately prior to use.
If the following process control checks are performed at the supplier,
adequate procedural coverage is expected to be evident and is to be
reviewed by the auditor. If the tests are performed by an external
source, the auditor is expected to review evidence of flow-down (i.e., a
Purchase Order) with the appropriate information to include at a
minimum; traceability to the required test and the standard used. In
addition an adequate certification or other document is required to
document the results of the tests.
5.1 Equipment Standardization
YES NO
5.1.1 Does the standardization reflect the requirements given in the
technique?
5.1.2 Is the surface roughness of the standard such that the customer
YES NO required defect signal to noise ratio is maintained?
YES NO
5.1.3 Are the inspection scanning parameters used to inspect material/parts
the same as those used on the reference standard?
YES NO NA 5.1.4 Do the ends of the probes employ a protective barrier to eliminate
scratches on parts under inspection; e.g., Teflon tape, etc. as required
by the customer’s specification?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: NA is only to be used where the
probe is not in contact with the parts surface or when not required by
the specification.
YES NO
5.1.5 Is the lift-off distance between the probe and material/part the same as
the standardization as listed in paragraph 5.1.1?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: As required by the approved
YES NO NA 5.1.6 If bolt hole probes, encircling and/or inside diameter coils are used, is
the fill factor between probes and material/parts within +/-10% of the
reference standard as listed in paragraph 5.1.1?
5.2 Equipment and Material Performance
YES NO
5.2.1 Is the system checked at the beginning of the examination, whenever
there is a change in equipment or accessories, whenever there are
changes in the electrical power supply that affect the eddy current
examination, after 4 hours, at the end of the shift, at the end of the lot
or at the end of the inspection?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This shall be defined by
procedure.
YES NO NA 5.2.2 For automated systems is the system standardized in accordance with
the customer requirements?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This includes robotic systems.
6. COMPLIANCE
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The supplier shall perform
representative inspections from current production to determine
compliance with these requirements. These parts shall be selected to
represent a variety of Nadcap participating customer requirements and
several different types of processing equipment if more than one Eddy
Current system is in use at this facility. Borrowing hardware from one
company to another to demonstrate compliance is not acceptable;
unless there is objective evidence the design authority has authorized
movement of the hardware to the company undergoing the audit.
Investigate the purchase order specifications to identify any customer
unique acceptance, process control, or procedure requirements
applicable to these parts. Witness the facility’s ability to perform
inspection of these parts in accordance with the requirements.
If no production hardware is available, compliance jobs may be
identified as N/A under the following circumstances (explanation must
be provided by auditor):
Supplier must provide evidence that they have tried to obtain parts for
the audit. Evidence could be copies of emails / communication to the
customer (or Subscriber) indicating such. Evidence the customer
(Subscriber) has responded. If supplier has done due diligence no
additional action is required. On the second consecutive occurrence
supplier must have evidence of task group concurrence of reason why.
If not a minor nonconformance will be issued.
I t is expected that the auditor shall review and follow traceability from
the purchase order to completion of the NDT process or final
certification by reviewing as a minimum the items listed below. The
auditor shall verify that the process applied complies with the
customer specification retrieval (as applicable), inspection identification, etc.
a) Purchase Order
b) Drawing (if applicable)
c) Work Order
6.3 Customer Specifications
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall verify compliance
to each of these requirements by direct observation.
YES NO
6.3.1 Is the facility using the appropriate specifications and revisions as
required by the contract document?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This will be confirmed by the
auditor by reviewing the customer P.O. and End User drawing if
available.
YES NO NA 6.3.2 If the facility is working to any deviations, have they been approved by
the customer?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor will confirm
documented customer approval; this may be in the form of a written
communication, technique approval or by a formal deviation from the
End User.
6.3.3 Were the applicable requirements, procedures and acceptance criteria
YES NO made available to the Eddy Current inspectors?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: Work instructions/routings/shop
travelers/techniques/procedures, acceptance criteria and unique
customer requirements shall be available to the inspectors. The term
“available” means that these documents are within easy access by the
technicians. These documents are available and are used to perform
the inspections, not used from memory.
YES NO NA 6.3.4 If written procedures, and or techniques, require review and/or
approval by the Cognizant Engineering Organization, is that approval
evident?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This shall be investigated and
confirmed by the auditor by reviewing the last ten part numbers
shipped.
YES NO NA 6.3.5 If applicable, are part specific drawing inspection and/or acceptance
notes being flowed down and followed by the inspectors?
6.3.6 Was there evidence of compliance to the document control procedure? YES NO
6.3.7 If applicable, are all specifications, drawings, procedures or technique
YES NO NA changes authorized? Auditor to confirm approval.
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall review the
documents for any unauthorized changes.
YES NO
6.3.8 Are eddy current inspections appropriately performed on 100% of the
material/parts or is a sampling plan utilized? Select the correct plan(s).
100% ______ Sampling Plans _______
YES NO NA 6.3.8.1 If sampling plans are utilized, have they been approved by the
customer?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: Auditor to confirm approval.
6.4 Inspection Process
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall verify compliance
to each of these requirements by direct observation.
6.4.1 Do applicable Work Orders/Shop Travelers and Technique Cards
contain or provide traceability to the following as a minimum?
6.4.1.1 Part number / Material Identification? YES NO
6.4.1.2 Specification reference? YES NO
6.4.1.3 Inspection acceptance requirements? YES NO
6.4.1.4 Correct sequence of operations? YES NO
6.5 Eddy Current Inspection
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall verify compliance
to each of these requirements by direct observation.
6.5.1 Did the inspector review the applicable specification(s), technique
YES NO sheet, and/or procedure(s) prior to inspecting the material/part?
6.5.2 Was the material or part(s) checked for a residual magnetic field prior
YES NO NA to the inspection? And if so, were they demagnetized if required?
6.5.3 If ferromagnetic material or parts were inspected, was the reference
YES NO NA standard, material or part properly demagnetized prior to inspection to
ensure that a magnetic field of 2 gauss or less was present when
tested with a residual field indicator (magnetometer)?
6.5.4 Does the eddy current equipment support the frequency ranges of the
YES NO probes being used?
6.5.5 Is the equipment capable of detecting all relevant discontinuities called
YES NO out by the customer’s acceptance specifications?
6.5.6 Do the eddy current probe(s) meet the requirements called out by the
YES NO customer?
6.5.7 Were all parts clean? YES NO
Compliance Assessment Guidance: Parts shall be cleaned in
accordance with specific technique instructions. The auditor shall
confirm the cleanliness of the parts prior to inspection by whatever
means are available and reasonable.
6.5.8 Were the parts inspected in accordance with the applicable procedure
YES NO and/or technique sheet?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall confirm these
issues by researching the appropriate customer specifications and
documentation.
YES NO
6.5.9 Was care taken to ensure that no adjustments were made to the
equipment after standardization was completed that could affect
inspection performance?
6.6 Eddy Current Bearing Inspection SECTION NA
Compliance Assessment Guidance: If Bearing Inspection is carried
out, answer the following questions under Sub-section 6.6. If bearing
inspection is not performed, answer NA to this sub-section.
6.6.1 Were residual field strength measurements taken prior to inspection? YES NO
6.6.2 If required, were all parts demagnetized prior to performing inspection? YES NO NA
YES NO NA 6.6.3 If ferromagnetic material or parts were inspected, was the reference
standard, material or part properly demagnetized prior to inspection to
ensure that a magnetic field of 0.5 gauss or less was present when
tested with a residual field indicator (magnetometer)?
YES NO
6.6.4 Is eddy current inspection performed on finished bearing components
only?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: Finish here is referring to finished
parts, not part surface finish.
YES NO
6.6.5 Was the scanning increment used as defined by the
technique/procedures?
6.6.6 Was the speed of the inspection the same as that used during the set-
YES NO up of the equipment?
6.6.7 Were all equipment settings made during set-up left unchanged during
YES NO the inspection?
6.6.8 If it was determined that there was an equipment malfunction, was the
YES NO NA equipment repaired or replaced and the entire lot re-inspected?
6.6.9 If it was determined that there was residual magnetism present,
YES NO NA was/were the rejected material/part(s) demagnetized and re-inspected?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This shall be defined in the
supplier’s proce dure.
YES NO NA 6.6.10 If it was determined that the set-up or inspection steps were performed
improperly, was the entire lot re-inspected following the appropriate
corrective action?
YES NO
6.6.11 Following the inspection of a lot of bearing components, was the
r eference standard re-run for verification purposes?
6.6.12 For repeatability, was the signal amplitude response obtained as
YES NO defined by the technique/procedures?
6.6.12.1 If not, was appropriate corrective action taken to ensure that the
YES NO NA inspection was performed properly and that the lot was re-inspected?
6.6.13 Is the reference standard representative of the bearing configuration
YES NO being inspected, per technique/procedure?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: Material, inner ring verses outer
ring, spherical raceway verses flat, size, etc.
6.6.14 Was the system checked if the inspection ran for more than four
YES NO NA hours?
6.7 Evaluation
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The following evaluation process
shall be determined by direct observation, and by researching the
specifications, procedures and other customer documents that are
applicable and required to reach an educated answer to each question.
YES NO NA 6.7.1 If required, did the inspector properly evaluate every indication and
reject parts containing relevant indications that exceeded the
acceptance limits?
YES NO NA 6.7.2 Were all rejectable indications marked on the part and/or appropriately
documented?
6.7.3 Was all pertinent paperwork traceable to the part? YES NO
6.7.4 Were the specific accept/reject criteria properly understood by the
YES NO inspector?
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor is expected to confirm
understanding by whatever means are required. This may be possible
by observation or, in some cases, may require the auditor to ask the
inspector(s) questions regarding the criteria and how it is to be used.
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This will be confirmed by the
auditor by reviewing the customer P.O and End User drawing if
available.
6.8 Post Cleaning & Preservation
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall verify compliance
to this requirement by direct observation.
6.8.1 If required was an adequate post process cleaning operation
performed? YES NO NA
6.8.2 After inspection and appropriate cleaning, were parts properly
protected from corrosion or damage?
YES NO NA
6.9 Inspector Qualification
6.9.1 Were the inspection personnel certified to the correct levels for the
work they were performing?
YES NO
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This shall be verified by review of
the certification records.
6.9.2 Were all non-certified or in-training personnel observed performing ET
operations properly supervised?
YES NO NA
Compliance Assessment Guidance: This shall be determined by direct
observation.
6.9.3 Were all personnel who require near vision correction to pass the
visual acuity exam wearing vision correction for detection and
evaluation purposes during testing/inspections?
YES NO NA
Compliance Assessment Guidance: The auditor shall verify that
corrective lenses were used if required. NA only where none of the
inspection personnel witnessed working required correction lenses.
“Near vision correction” refers to the glasses or contacts that were
required to pass the vision test. It is required that such correction is
worn during all testing/inspection at 1x. Therefore, magnification that
requires self-focus may be used as an aid in interpretation with or
without vision correction.
6.10 Inspection Status
6.10.1 Are symbols and/or marking methods used to denote Eddy Current
inspection status?
YES NO NA
6.10.2 Were all inspection results properly recorded and traceable to the
parts?
YES NO
2011法律经典案例
①药家鑫肇事后捅死伤者案 药家鑫涉嫌在驾车肇事后将伤者捅死一案，经媒体报道后备受社会关注。2 011年3月23日，陕西省西安市中级人民法院公开开庭审理此案。 法院经审理查明，2010年10月20日22时30分许，被告人药家鑫驾驶红色雪弗兰小轿车从西安外国语大学长安校区返回市区途中，将前方在非机动车道上骑电动车同方向行驶的被害人张妙撞倒。药家鑫恐张妙记住车牌号找其麻烦，即持尖刀在张妙胸、腹、背等处捅刺数刀，将张妙杀死。逃跑途中又撞伤二人。 4月22日，西安市中级人民法院作出一审判决，以故意杀人罪判处药家鑫死刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处赔偿被害人家属经济损失45498.5元。 药家鑫不服，提出上诉。 5月20日，陕西省高级人民法院对被告人药家鑫故意杀人案进行了二审公开开庭审理并宣判，依法裁定驳回药家鑫上诉，维持原判。 中国人民大学法学院教授陈卫东
药家鑫案本身并不是一个太过于复杂的案件，但随着媒体的介入，药家鑫案引起了社会的广泛关注与争论。药家鑫案之所以备受关注，除被告人开车不慎将被害人撞到之后不仅不进行救助反而对其连捅数刀而导致被害人死亡这一恶劣的情节之外；还有药家鑫本人“农村人难缠”的杀人动机，使得农村人与城市人出现了地域上的身份对立；再加之部分媒体对药家鑫涉嫌“官二代”、“富二代”身份的渲染；这些加剧了民众的愤怒情绪，促成了一股强大民意的形成，以至于在药家鑫被判处死刑之后，在网络上出现了公众叫好的现象。 实际上，隐藏在该案背后的更为重要的问题就是如何处理媒体与司法、民意与司法之间的关系，这正是药家鑫案之所以典型的重要的原因。最高人民法院发布的《关于司法公开的六项规定》和《关于人民法院接受新闻媒体舆论监督的若干规定》都提倡司法公开，接受新闻媒体的监督。媒体监督司法其本质就是公民参与司法的过程，媒体介入的时间、方式如何把握，才能实现公民理性、有序地参与司法？就民意与司法的关系而言，《最高人民法院关于贯彻宽严相济刑事政策的若干意见》和《在审理故意杀人、伤害及黑社会性质组织犯罪案件中切实贯彻宽严相济刑事政策》都强调社会效果和法律效果的统一，“必须充分考虑案件的处理是否有利于赢得广大人民群众的支持”，这实际上就是刑事诉讼法第6条依靠群众原则的体现，即司法应当尊重民意，允许公民参与并表达意愿。就当下我国而言，加强公民的参与，尊重民意对于化解司法信任危机具有重要的现实意义，但是，也要注意协调好公民参与与审判独立的关系问题，毕竟只有理性、有序的公民参与才能真正提高司法的公信与权威。如何通过公民有序、理性地参与司法来分担法院与法官的所承受的维护司法公信与权
例一： 甲旅行社的欧洲部副经理李某，在劳动合同未到期时提出辞职，未办移交手续即到了乙旅行社，并将甲旅行社的欧洲合作伙伴情况、旅行路线设计、报价方案和客户资料等信息带到乙社。乙社原无欧洲业务，自李某加入后欧洲业务猛增，成为甲社的有力竞争对手。现甲社向人民法院起诉乙社和李某侵犯商业秘密。 问题1：法院如认定乙社和李某侵犯甲社的商业秘密，须审查什么事实？ 答案：甲社所称的“商业秘密”是否属于从公开渠道不能获得； 乙社的欧洲客户资料是否有合法来源； 乙社在聘用李某时是否明知或应知其掌握甲社的上述业务信息。 问题2：如法院判定乙社和李某侵权成立，确定其赔偿责任可以采用何种办法？ 答案：两种，一、按照甲社在侵权期间的利润损失进行赔偿，乙社和李某承担连带赔偿责任。 二、甲社在侵权期间的利润损失无法计算时，按照乙社所获利润进行赔偿，李某承担连带赔偿责任。 例二： 安徽省知名制药企业华佗国药厂以吉林一家药业公司使用的“华佗银屑王”商标与其申请注册的“华佗”商标相近似为由，将该企业告上法庭。11月6日,安徽省亳州市中级人民法院一审判决银诺克药业公司销毁全部的华佗银屑王产品，并赔偿原告经济损失10万元。 原告华佗国药厂在安徽省享有一定的知名度，主营中、成药及保健品制造、销售,经营本企业自产产品及相关技术出口业务等。2005年12月, “华佗”商标被安徽省工商行政管理局认定为著名商标。 华佗国药厂称，被告银诺克公司在其商品的外包装上使用与“华佗”商标相近似的“华佗银屑王”五个字,误导了相关公众,侵犯了“华佗”注册商标专用权。同时，使公众误认为“华佗银屑王”是华佗国药厂产品,其行为构成了不正当竞争，请求法院确认原告注册的“华佗”药品商标为驰名商标，判令被告立即停止侵权行为，并赔偿经济损失40万元。 问题1：这起案件的纠纷性质是什么？ 答案：应是商标名称的侵权纠纷。 问题2：如果你是法官，你会如何审理？ 答案：我认为，“华佗”二字是原告注册的，是按照商标法落入保护范围的二字，被告并未正当使用“华佗”二字，构成了对原告注册商标的侵权。由于商标法在调整商标侵权方面属于市场竞争的行为，而反不正当竞争法是专门法，按照专门法优于普通法的法律适用原则，本案不能对同一行为再适用反不正当竞争法,故对原告要求认定被告行为构成不正当竞争的诉讼请求不再支持。
反垄断法案例 1、两拓结盟 2009年6月5日，力拓宣布与竞争对手必和必拓达成合作协议，双方将合并各自的西澳大利亚矿石业务，成立一家合资公司，并各持股50%。由于两者的铁矿石出口量之和占到了澳大利亚的８０％以上，已构成了实质性的垄断。而作为对进口澳矿依赖度超过４０％的中国，如何应对成为业界关注的焦点。 国际钢协、中钢协、欧洲钢铁工业联盟、日本钢铁联盟对此表示强烈反对。商务部称，至今未收到两拓的反垄断申报。 2、北京首起反垄断诉讼案宣判界定“相关市场”概念 原告唐山人人公司诉称，由于其降低了对百度搜索竞价排名的投入，被告即对全民医药网在自然排名结果中进行了全面屏蔽，从而导致了全民医药网访问量的大幅度降低。而被告这种利用中国搜索引擎市场的支配地位对原告的网站进行屏蔽的行为，违反了我国《反垄断法》的规定，构成滥用市场支配地位强迫原告进行竞价排名交易的行为。故请求法院判令被告赔偿原告经济损失1106000元，解除对全民医药网的屏蔽并恢复全面收录。 被告百度公司辩称，被告确实对原告所拥有的全民医药网采取了减少收录的措施，实施该措施的原因是原告的网站设置了大量垃圾外链、搜索引擎自动对其进行了作弊处罚。但是，该项处罚措施针对的仅仅是百度搜索中的自然排名结果，与原告所称的竞价排名的投入毫无关系，亦不会影响原告竞价排名的结果。其次，原告称被告具有《反垄断法》所称的市场支配地位缺乏事实依据。被告提供的搜索引擎服务对于广大网民来说是免费的，故与搜索引擎有关的服务不能构成《反垄断法》所称的相关市场。因此，请求人民法院判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。 法院经审理认为，首先，认定经营者是否具有市场支配地位，原则上应当根据《反垄断法》第十八条所规定的市场份额、竞争状况、控制销售市场和原材料市场的能力等因素进行判断。当然，在经营者的市场份额能够予以准确确定的情况下，也可以根据《反垄断法》第十九条的规定进行市场支配地位的推定。但当反垄断民事诉讼中的原告选择适用上述推定条款来证明被告具有市场支配地位时，应当就其对被告市场份额的计算或者证明方式提供充分的证据予以支持。本案中的相关市场是中国搜索引擎服务市场，原告仅提交了两篇有关被告市场地位的新闻报道，未提供具体的计算方式、方法及有关基础性数据的证据能够使本院确信该市场份额的确定源于科学、客观的分析，因此原告未能举证证明被告在“中国搜索引擎服务市场”中占据了支配地位。 其次，《反垄断法》并不禁止企业通过自身的发展形成规模经济，从而占据一定的市场支配地位，《反垄断法》禁止的是占据市场支配地位的企业所实施的，能够影响市场结构，破坏市场竞争秩序的行为和措施。如果经营者所实施的行为具有正当理由，也没有产生破坏市场竞争秩序的后果，即不构成《反垄断法》所禁止的滥用行为。本案中，被告虽然对全民医药网的自然排名结果实施了减少收录数量的技术措施，但其行为是对全民医药网存在“垃 圾外链”行为进行的处罚。被告在其网站的相关页面上向社会公众公布了百度搜索引擎的算法规则及针对作弊行为的处罚方式，原告完全有途径了解百度搜索反对网站设置“垃圾外链”的行为，并会对这种行为实施处罚。而且，其处罚措施针对的是所有设置了“垃圾外链”的被搜索网站而非单独指向全民医药网。庭审过程中，原告也承认其经营的全民医药网确实存在“垃圾外链”。上述反作弊机制的实施是为了使搜索结果更为真实和可靠，从而保证广大搜索引擎用户的利益，同时，现有证据亦无法证明被告采取的上述措施对原告而言存在歧视性或者胁迫性，故被告基于全民医药网存在大量“垃圾外链”的事实而对其实施了减少自然排名部分收录数量的技术措施是正当的，不构成滥用市场支配地位的行为。 综上，原告既未能举证证明被告在“中国搜索引擎服务市场”中占据了支配地位，也未能证
反不正当竞争法案例分析 案情简介: 2007年10月22日，山东省高级人民法院审结了一起不正当竞争案例，济南趵突泉酿酒有限公司诉程某的不正当竞争纠纷，历经两审司法程序，终于维权成功。 趵突泉公司是山东省著名的白酒生产企业，其主导产品为趵突泉特酿系列白酒。2001年4月，山东省工商行政管理局评定趵突泉公司注册并使用在白酒商品上的趵突泉商标为山东省著名商标;2006年4月29日，中国食品工业协会等三家单位共同授予趵突泉公司趵突泉特酿产品“中国白酒工业十大区域优势品牌”荣誉称号等。 趵突泉公司生产、销售的34度精品趵突泉特酿，其包装盒为长方体，四面主色调为上黄下暗红色，上装饰方框横线内印有祥云图案，前、后视图和左、右视图分别相同，前视图中间方框内印有趵突泉三个字，上部有趵突泉图文组合商标，下部暗红色图案中隐有趵突泉凉亭实景图;左视图上部印有“趵突泉特酿”五个字，并以红黄两色区别，下部暗红色图案中印有虎头图案。趵突泉公司的上述包装装潢自1995年起用于34度精品趵突泉牌趵突泉特酿。趵突泉公司生产、销售的34度趵突泉特酿，其包装盒采用两色设计，上部金黄色下为暗褐色，两色在图案下部有交叉，前、后视图和左、右视图分别相同。前视图上部有“中国山东”字样，趵突泉图文组合商标位于中国与山东之间，中部为一扇形图案，以暗褐色为背景，“趵突泉”三字金色凸印于上，下部有一凉亭图案。趵突泉公司的上述包装装潢自2004年起用于趵突泉牌趵突泉特酿。 2006年7月28日，趵突泉公司分别购得程某生产的34度精品趵特源特酿白酒和34度精品趵特白酒各一瓶。程某生产销售的34度精品趵特源特酿白酒所使用的包装装潢有如下特点:包装盒为长方体，四面主色调为上黄下暗红色，上装饰方框横线内印有祥云图案，前、后视图和左、右视图分别相同，前视图中间菱形方框内
反不正当竞争法案例分 析 集团公司文件内部编码：（TTT-UUTT-MMYB-URTTY-ITTLTY-
案例1： [案情]:1987年1月甲厂在国家商标局注册了圆形商标"喜凰"牌，用于白酒产品。1987年3月，乙厂注册了圆形图案"天福山"，其中有"喜凤"字样，整个商标图形图案和文字除"天福山"和"凤"字外，所有的文字、图案都与"喜凰"商标一样，并且都用隶书书写，字型相仿。从1987年3月到1988年5月，乙厂用"天福山"的商标共生产白酒470万瓶，销售了340多万瓶。销售额达244万多元。正因为甲、乙厂的商标相似，又加之乙厂采用了与甲厂白酒相似的装潢，致使广大消费者误认为"喜凰"就是"喜凤"，也既"喜凰"，造成了消费者误购。同时也因此造成了甲厂产品滞销，给甲厂造成了巨大的经济损失。因此，1989年1月，甲厂状告了乙厂。 [问题] 乙厂的行为属于何种行为说明理由。 [解析] 所谓假冒或仿冒行为，是指盗用他人的商业信誉或者商品信誉，使其商品与他人商品相混淆，从中牟取非法利益的行为。假冒仿冒的对象包括他人的注册商标，知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢、企业名称或者姓名。假冒或仿冒的形式有两种：一是未经权利人许可而擅自使用他人的注册商标，知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢、企业名称或者姓名；二是使用与他人相近的并足以造成误人的商品名称、包装和注册商标。 假冒仿冒行为的认定： （1）行为人必须是从事商品经营或者营利性服务的法人、其他经济组织和个体工商户。即实施假冒、仿冒行为的主体必须是经营者。
（2）从客观上看，行为在客观上具有违法性。即违反了反不正当竞争法、产品质量法、商标法等有关法律法规关于注册商标、知名商品、企业名称或姓名、质量标志等规定。 （3）行为人主观上出于故意或有过失。行为人实施的假冒、仿冒行为，目的在于牟取利润或损害竞争对手。 （4）行为在客观方面给他人及社会造成危害。假冒、仿冒行为损害了竞争对手、破坏了市场公平竞争，扰乱了社会经济秩序。 案例2 [案情]:某啤酒厂在其产品的瓶颈上挂一标签，上印有“获１９００年柏林国际啤酒博览会金奖”字样和一个带外文的徽章。经调查，此奖项和徽章均属子虚乌有。 [问题]：该啤酒厂的行为应当如何认定? Ａ、根据《反不正当竞争法》，该行为构成虚假宣传行为 Ｂ、根据《反不正当竞争法》，该行为构成虚假表示行为 Ｃ、根据《民法通则》，该行为构成欺诈的民事行为 Ｄ、该行为违反商业道德，但不违反法律 [解析] 根据我国《反不正当竞争法》第5条第4项规定：“在商品上伪造或者冒用认证标志、名优标志等质量标志，伪造产地，对商品质量作引人误解的虚假表示，是不正当行为。”因此，B项是正确的。注意“表示”二字，该法未用“宣传”。而C项不满足欺诈的四个构成要件，因此C项是错误的。
反不正当竞争法案例 案例三 案例摘要：某经销公司所在地的夏季气候十分炎热，凉席的销路一向很好。2006年春，该公司购买了一批井冈山产的凉席，准备在夏季卖出。但该年夏季气候反常，比往年夏季气温低许多，这样就造成该公司的凉席销路不好，在仓库内积压。为了销售积压的凉席，收回资金，该公司经理决定用奖励的方法来促销凉席，即将购买凉席的价款的10%给予购买者。恰在此时，有一企业招待所的采购员李某来
到该公司购买凉席100张，经双方协商，达成协议：李某所买凉席货款的10%称该公司给李某的奖励；对于这部分“奖励”，双方均不入财务账。在李某买走凉席后，该经销公司又用同一种方法推销其积压的凉席，库存凉席很快便销售一空。但该地的工商部门闻讯前来调查，认为某经销公司的行为属商业贿赂行为，没收了其非法所得，并处以相应的罚款。 点评：本案涉及到帐外回扣行为的认定及其处理问题。第一、该经销公司的“奖励”行为实际是一
种帐外回扣，构成了不正当竞争。所谓回扣是指经营者销售商品时在账外暗中以现金、实物或者其他方式退给对方单位或者个人的一定比例的商品价款。并不是所有的回扣都构成不正当竞争行为。《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第8条规定：“在账外暗中给予对方单位或者个人回扣的，以行贿论处；对方单位或者个人在账外暗中收受回扣的，以受贿论处。”可见，只有在帐外暗中回扣的行为，才是不正当竞争行为。而本案中某经销公司给购买凉席者的“奖励”，采
用的是暗中商议，所得“奖励”并不入账，实际上是一种帐外回扣，是《反不正当竞争法》所禁止的不正当竞争行为。第二、该经销公司所应承担的法律责任。根据《反不正当竞争法》第22条的规定，对于该经销公司违法行为，监督检查部门可以根据情节处以一万元以上二十万元以下的罚款，有违法所得的，予以没收；如果构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
案例1： [案情]:1987年1月甲厂在国家商标局注册了圆形商标"喜凰"牌，用于白酒产品。1987年3月，乙厂注册了圆形图案"天福山"，其中有"喜凤"字样，整个商标图形图案和文字除"天福山"和"凤"字外，所有的文字、图案都与"喜凰"商标一样，并且都用隶书书写，字型相仿。从1987年3月到1988年5月，乙厂用"天福山"的商标共生产白酒470万瓶，销售了340多万瓶。销售额达244万多元。正因为甲、乙厂的商标相似，又加之乙厂采用了与甲厂白酒相似的装潢，致使广大消费者误认为"喜凰"就是"喜凤"，也既"喜凰"，造成了消费者误购。同时也因此造成了甲厂产品滞销，给甲厂造成了巨大的经济损失。因此，1989年1月，甲厂状告了乙厂。 [问题] 乙厂的行为属于何种行为？说明理由。 [解析] 所谓假冒或仿冒行为，是指盗用他人的商业信誉或者商品信誉，使其商品与他人商品相混淆，从中牟取非法利益的行为。假冒仿冒的对象包括他人的注册商标，知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢、企业名称或者姓名。假冒或仿冒的形式有两种：一是未经权利人许可而擅自使用他人的注册商标，知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢、企业名称或者姓名；二是使用与他人相近的并足以造成误人的商品名称、包装和注册商标。 假冒仿冒行为的认定： （1）行为人必须是从事商品经营或者营利性服务的法人、其他经济组织和个体工商户。即实施假冒、仿冒行为的主体必须是经营者。 （2）从客观上看，行为在客观上具有违法性。即违反了反不正当竞争法、产品质量法、商标法等有关法律法规关于注册商标、知名商品、企业名称或姓名、质量标志等规定。 （3）行为人主观上出于故意或有过失。行为人实施的假冒、仿冒行为，目的在于牟取利润或损害竞争对手。 （4）行为在客观方面给他人及社会造成危害。假冒、仿冒行为损害了竞争对手、破坏了市场公平竞争，扰乱了社会经济秩序。 案例2 [案情]:某啤酒厂在其产品的瓶颈上挂一标签，上印有“获１９００年柏林国际啤酒博览会金奖”字样和一个带外文的徽章。经调查，此奖项和徽章均属子虚乌有。 [问题]：该啤酒厂的行为应当如何认定? Ａ、根据《反不正当竞争法》，该行为构成虚假宣传行为 Ｂ、根据《反不正当竞争法》，该行为构成虚假表示行为 Ｃ、根据《民法通则》，该行为构成欺诈的民事行为 Ｄ、该行为违反商业道德，但不违反法律 [解析] 根据我国《反不正当竞争法》第5条第4项规定：“在商品上伪造或者冒用认证标志、名优标志等质量标志，伪造产地，对商品质量作引人误解的虚假表示，是不正当行为。”因此，B项是正确的。注意“表示”二字，该法未用“宣传”。而C项不满足欺诈的四个构成要件，因此C项是错误的。
反不正当竞争法 21.某市政府所属有关部门的下列哪一行为违反《反不正当竞争法》的规定？ A.市卫生局成立的儿童保健专家组受某生产厂家委托，对其婴儿保健产品提供质量认证标志并收取赞助费 B.市工商局和市电视台联合举办消费者信得过产品评选活动，评选中违反公平程序而使当选的前八名全部为本市产品 C.市交管局规定，全市货运车辆必须在指定的两种品牌中选择安装一款车辆运行记录器，否则不予年检；其指定品牌为本地的“波浪”牌和法国的NJK牌 D.市政府决定对市酒厂减免地方税以提供财政支持 答案：C 解析：认定政府及其所属部门滥用行政权力限制竞争行为的要件包括：第一，行为主体限于政府及其所属部门；第二，政府及其所属部门，实施了法律、行政法规禁止的限制竞争行为，亦即客观上有滥用行政权力的事实；第三，政府及其所属部门滥用行政权力实施限制竞争的行为，其目的在于保护本部门、本地区的利益，从而损害外地经营者和本地消费者的合法权益。《反不正当竞争法》第7条规定，政府及其所属部门不得滥用行政权力，限定他人购买其指定的经营者的商品，限制其他经营者正当的经营活动。政府及其所属部门不得滥用行政权力，限制外地商品进入本地市场，或者本地商品流向外地市场。ABD项中，政府及其所属部门所实施的行为没有限定他人购买其指定的经营者的商品，限制其他经营者正当的经营活动。也没有限制外地商品进入本地市场，或者本地商品流向外地市场。所以没有违反《反不正当竞争法》。C项中市交管局利用其行政权力限定本市的货运车辆必须购买指定的运行记录器，属于限制竞争行为。违反了《反不正当竞争法》的规定，因此C为当选项。 22.根据《反不正当竞争法》的规定，下列哪一行为属于不正当竞争行为中的混淆行为？ A.甲厂在其产品说明书中作夸大其词的不实说明 B.乙厂的矿泉水使用“清凉”商标，而“清凉矿泉水厂”是本地一知名矿泉水厂的企业名称 C.丙商场在有奖销售中把所有的奖券刮奖区都印上“未中奖”字样 D.丁酒厂将其在当地评奖会上的获奖证书复印在所有的产品包装上 答案：B 解析：混淆行为是指经营者在市场经营活动中，以种种不实手段对自己的商品或服务作虚假表示、说明或承诺，或利用他人的智力劳动成果推销自己的商品或服务，使用户或消费者产生误解。扰乱市场秩序、损害同业竞争者的利益或消费者利益的行为。根据《反不正当竞争法》第5条的规定，混淆行为包括以下4种：（一）假冒他人的注册商标；（二）擅自使用知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢，或者使用与知名商品近似的名称、包装、装潢，造成和他人的知名商品相混淆，使购买者误认为是该知名商品；（三）擅自使用他人的企业名称或者姓名，引人误认为是他人的商品；（四）在商品上伪造或者冒用认证标志、名优标志等质量标志，伪造产地，对商品质量作引人误解的虚假表示。法律%教育网只有B项是混
2005年8月至2006年4月，某医药公司在药品经营活动中，按照当事人经营药品的销售额，先后以返点、会务费促销费、赞助费等名义给予当事人财物共286246.92元。问题：如何看待某医药公司的促销行为？ 经营者不得采用财物或者其他手段进行贿赂以销售或者购买商品。在帐外暗中给予对方单位或者个人回扣的，以行贿论处；对方单位或者个人在帐外暗中收受回扣的，以受贿论处。可以明示给对方折扣，必须如实入帐。 某省于1998年元旦开通有线电视公共频道，该有线电视台为了提高收视率，以吸引更多的广告客户，推出了集娱乐，休闲，广告抽奖为一体的“缤纷时刻”栏目，开展“日日送奖，月月送礼”活动，每天向观众出一道简单的问题，猜对的观众通过抽奖即可获得每日送出的一台VCD或者一部摩托罗拉手机，每月还送出一个超过10万元的大奖即一套公寓。此举引起了强烈的社会反响。另外，该省还拥有多家电视台，电视台之间的竞争非常激烈，而该有线电视台开展的有奖竞猜活动的目的主要是为了招揽广告客户。 分析：该电视台的行为违反了反不正当竞争法哪些规定？ 该电视台的行为违反了反不正当竞争法 为了吸引更多广告客户（即赚取更多广告利润），电视台需提高节目收视率。为此，该电视台就运用了答题抽大奖的活动来吸引观众的注意和参与行为，"推销"自己的节目。实质上是有奖销售的一种特殊形式。 作为一项创利手段，这一行为本身是可取的。若符合公认的商业道德可以起到活跃市场促进公平竞争的作用。 但是，作为一种以抽奖决定获奖者的偶然性行为，该电视台设立的周奖项奖额高达10多万元，违反了反不正当竞争法。《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第十三条第三款规定：经营者不得从事下列有奖销售：抽奖式的有奖销售，最高额超过5千元。 2006年6月，肇庆某工商分局经调查核实，芳满庭商店自2004年12月起，与肇庆、珠海、深圳等地8家旅行社签订合作协议，承诺对旅行社及其导游带团到其商店消费购物，按“人头费”每人2元和30%-35%的“购物提成”给予奖励。在上述协议里，未出现“回扣”字样。至案发时止，芳满庭商店通过上述销售方式，共获得销售收入95万余元，累计给予旅行社及其导游“人头费”10余万元，“购物提成”35万余元。此外，在上述合作协议书及其他所有材料里均没出现“佣金”字样。至案发时止，芳满庭商店仅设有出纳日记账，记载了当事人的现金收支情况（包括大部分“人头费”和“购物提成”）。 问题：购物回扣是否合法佣金？ 根据《经纪人管理办法》和《关于禁止商业贿赂行为的暂行规定》相关条款之规定，本案领取“人头费”和“购物提成”的旅游公司根本不具备中介活动经营资格，且原告与旅游公司并没订立中介合同约定佣金事项。从任何意义上讲，原告付给旅游公司的人头费和购物提成都不是“佣金”。而且，原告付给旅行社及其
竞争法经典案例精解 一、课堂案例 （一）仿冒知名商品包装 案情：四川飞亚企业公司自70年代开始生产“飞马”牌味精并投入市场。1979年，“飞马”牌商标经国家工商行政管理局核准注册。“飞马”牌味精曾被四川省有关部门评定为省优质产品，并被四川省政府授予1993年度四川省名牌产品称号，主要市场为万县市及四川、湖北、云南、贵州等地区，享有较高知名度；“飞马”牌味精的系列包装也曾容获四川省优质包装奖章。“飞马”牌味精包装袋正面设计采用钟楼、山、树呈左高右低排列的蓝色挖空剪影艺术表现形式，并配以左上角红色“飞马”牌注册商标及右上角红色“味精”二字；背面由绿色双线组成长方形，周边内配以产品配料、标准代号、保存方法等绿色文字说明。万县市酿造厂自1993年11月开始生产销售“万州”牌味精，主要销售地是万县市及省内其他部分地区，其包装袋设计正面采用流杯池亭阁、山、树呈左高右低排列的蓝色挖空剪影艺术表现形式，并配以左上角红色“万州”牌注册商标及右上角红色“味精”二字，从而构成正面总体形象；背面由绿色单线组成长方形，周边内配以产品配料成分、产品标准代号、保存方法等绿色文字说明。 问题： 1、万县市酿造厂的行为属于什么性质的不正当竞争行为？ 2、该不正当竞争行为的概念、特征？ 3、应当承担什么性质的法律责任？ （二）侵犯名称 案情：《读者》杂志社是全国知名的杂志出版单位，其出版发行的《读者》杂志内容丰富，可读性强，在全国非常畅销。《读者》杂志的前身是《读者文摘》，因与美国在我国注册的杂志同名，而于1993年7月改名为读者，并将该名称进行注册公告。同年8月，某出版社借机出版了《读者精华本》，该书不仅采用了《读者》杂志已经注册公告的名称，在封面设计上也采用了与《读者》杂志相同的样式和风格，而且在内容的装帧设计上也与《读者》杂志相同，只是将封面的字体由原版的手写体改为楷体。该书出版后，引起许多与《读者》杂志的忠实读者的
案情介绍 原告某A市光明食品厂生产的“金猴”牌果味奶糖以其奶味浓、果味纯正，受到消费者的喜爱，在市场上比较畅销。该省某B市一食品厂见“金猴”果味奶糖销路好，就擅自印刷“金猴”注册商标标识的包装纸用在本厂生产的糖果上，与原告争夺市场。消费者买到假冒商品后，抱怨“金猴”果味奶糖质量下降，使光明食品厂销路骤减，造成很大经济损失。 光明食品厂向工商行政管理局反映在市场上有假冒该厂的商品，经该厂调查，获知B市食品厂是生产假冒“金猴”果味奶糖的企业，工商局依法予以查处，并追究其法律责任。 试分析： 1．为什么说B市食品厂的行为是一种不正当竞争行为？ 2．在处理本案时执法机关应如何适用法律？ 3．执法机关应对B厂如何处罚？ 评析 1．B市食品厂未经注册商标所有人的许可，在同一种商品上使用与A市光明食品厂相同的注册商标，属于一种典型的假冒商标行为。商标是企业的宝贵财富，商标是企业的标志，商品信誉就是企业的生命，一个拥有名牌商标的企业，由于自身在质量、价格及服务方面的优势，在竞争中就可以争取非常有利的交易条件。A市光明食品厂的“金猴”注册商标是企业在竞争中取得优势地位的一种工具，因为它是企业信誉的标记，所以诚实经营者必定发挥商标的积极作用，争取竞争优势；与此同时，不正当竞争的行为人，也会利用商标进行欺骗性的交易，获得非法利益。B市食品厂假冒他人的注册商标行为是一种典型的违背诚实信用商业道德，危害社会经济秩序的不正当竞争行为。 2．《反不正当竞争法》是一部规范竞争行为的基本法，仅仅对侵犯商标权的行为作了普通规定和原则规定。如果一项违法行为既构成假冒商标的不正当竞争行为，又违反了《商标法》对注册商标专用权的保护规定，根据特别法优于普通法的原则，应优先适用《商标法》。 3．根据《商标法》和《反不正当竞争法》的有关规定，工商行政管理部门对B市某食品厂做出处理：责令停止侵权行为、收缴未使用的有“金猴”标识的包装糖纸、赔偿商标专用权人的经济损失、罚款。 回扣是一种商业贿赂行为 案情介绍 某医院药房采购员朱某在季度进药中结识了某地药厂的销售员赵某。赵某称：“我厂生产的抗生素及消炎药等药品积压严重，有的已经过了有效期，厂里已做了标签处理，现