The release of the Detailed Implementing Rules on the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance” by the Supreme People’s Court in May 2015 provided more instruction on how to refer to Guiding Cases in subsequent, similar cases, namely by instructing judges to refer to the “Main Points of the Adjudication” section of Guiding Cases (“GCs”). To provide a deeper understanding of the evolution of these critical “Main Points”–and the issues they raise–the China Guiding Cases Project (“CGCP”) proudly announces the release of 10 new Guiding Cases in Perspective™ sets prepared by CGCP Founder and Director Dr. Mei Gechlik and over two dozen CGCP Editors, who include former government attorneys, current attorneys of leading law firms, and law students enrolled in prestigious law schools inside and outside of China.

These 10 Guiding Cases in Perspective™ sets show that the Supreme People’s Court and its Office for the Work on Case Guidance have done excellent work in preparing GCs for use in the adjudication of subsequent, similar cases, but not without leaving behind questions, as illustrated by two examples below:

• GC10: LI Jianjun v. Shanghai Jiapower Environment Protection Science and Technology Co., Ltd., A Corporate Resolution Revocation Dispute. Its “Main Points” section includes the following:

A people’s court, when handling a corporate resolution revocation dispute, should review: Whether or not the procedure for convening meetings and the method of voting violate laws, administrative regulations, or the articles of association, as well as whether or not the content of the resolution violates the articles of association.

The above paragraph is based on Article 22, Paragraph 2 of China’s Company Law. But shouldn’t courts first need to confirm whether the content of the resolution is in accord with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations, as required by Article 22, Paragraph 1, which, unfortunately, is not mentioned at all in GC10?

• GC29: Tianjin China Youth Travel Service v. Tianjin Guoqing International Travel Agency, A Dispute over an Unauthorized Use of Another’s Enterprise Name. The “Main Points” section is:

Where, without authorization, [a business operator] uses another’s abbreviated enterprise name, which actually already functions as a trade name, as an Internet bid-for-ranking keyword in business activities, causing the relevant public to be confused and to misidentify [the enterprise], [the unauthorized use of the abbreviated enterprise name] is an act of unfair competition.

Suppose that, in a subsequent case, an enterprise only uses another’s abbreviated enterprise name that actually functions as a trade name in its website source code, rather than as a bid-for ranking keyword, and causes the relevant public to be confused by the search results and misidentify the website, should the court that handles the case refer to GC29? What is intriguing is that the defendant of GC29 actually used another’s abbreviated enterprise name in its website source code, but this important fact is not mentioned in the “Main Points”.

Beneath these questions is a bigger issue yet to be addressed by the Supreme People’s Court: can GCs be revised? At present, relevant rules on GCs only allow a GC to lose its guiding effect if it is in conflict with a new piece of legislation or judicial interpretation or if it is replaced with a new GC. Our analysis shows that there is a real need for a revision mechanism to enhance the value of GCs in guiding subsequent adjudication.

Guiding Cases in Perspective™ is a unique serial publication of the China Guiding Cases Project that identifies the original judgments selected by the Supreme People’s Court, examines their transformation into Guiding Cases, and explores the treatment of the Guiding Cases in subsequent cases. For the entire in Perspective™ sets of the other 8 GCs (including GCs 1, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19, 30, 32), please visit: https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/.