September 11th to 15th will be the 2023 China Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, with the theme of this year's promotion week being "Unified Big Market Fair Competition for the Future". On September 14th, the Supreme People's Court released the 2023 People's Court's Anti Monopoly and Anti Unfair Competition Typical Cases (see second and third versions), including 5 anti monopoly typical cases and 5 anti unfair competition typical cases. Five typical antitrust cases involve industries closely related to people's livelihoods, such as medicine, funeral, car sales, and building materials. Among them, three cases of abuse of market dominance involve four abusive behaviors: unfair high prices, limited trading, attaching unreasonable trading conditions, and refusing to trade. Two cases of monopoly agreement involve vertical agreements and horizontal agreements, respectively. Anti monopoly justice plays an important role in serving and ensuring social livelihoods, maintaining fair market competition order, and promoting the construction of a unified national market. In the cases of disputes over the refusal to trade in "basic funeral services", disputes over the vertical monopoly agreement of "General Motors", and anti monopoly administrative penalties for "commercial concrete joint venture", the people's court resolutely stopped or awarded full compensation in accordance with the law for monopolistic behaviors such as abusing market dominance by public enterprises in the funeral industry, and monopolistic agreements reached and implemented by operators in the automobile sales industry and building materials industry, Effectively safeguard the interests of the people and small and medium-sized enterprises. The judgment of typical cases has guiding value in promoting the accurate application of antitrust law. The dispute over the abuse of market dominance of the raw material drug "Goudi Loratadine" for the first time explained the correlation and judgment methods between the market blockade effect of the accused restricted trading behavior and the exercise of patent rights, as well as the basic considerations for identifying and regulating unfair high price behavior; Refusing to deal with disputes over "basic funeral services" and attempting to order public enterprises with exclusive status to assume the obligation to resume transactions under legitimate and reasonable conditions; The proposal on jurisdictional differences in the refusal to trade disputes of the raw material drug "Batroxobin" further clarifies the criteria for determining the jurisdictional connection points of refusal to trade disputes. Improving the linkage mechanism, promoting the coordination and unity of administrative and judicial standards for antitrust law enforcement, is conducive to promoting the formation of a joint force in antitrust law enforcement and justice, and coordinating the maintenance of fair competition order. In the "General Motors" vertical monopoly agreement dispute case, the burden of proof in related civil compensation litigation cases was clarified after the administrative penalty for antitrust was imposed, effectively reducing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The "Commercial Concrete Joint Venture" antitrust administrative punishment case has refined the recognition standards for horizontal monopoly agreements and supported the administrative enforcement of antitrust administrative law enforcement departments in accordance with the law. Five typical cases of anti unfair competition involve the types of cases including the application of general terms of unfair competition, confusion, false propaganda, infringement of technological secrets, and disputes over online unfair competition. These cases involve not only household appliances, short videos, online games, catering reviews, but also high-tech fields such as diagnostic reagents. In the "Siemens" counterfeit confusion dispute case, the people's court is guided by encouraging honest operation, strengthening the protection of well-known brands, and cracking down on dishonest trademark attachment and counterfeit hitchhiking behavior. In the case where existing evidence cannot prove the specific amount of the defendant's profits and the plaintiff's losses, but is sufficient to determine that the defendant's infringement profits significantly exceed the legal compensation limit, full consideration should be given to popularity