Patent

Taiwan High Court Awarded Job Bank 104 Corporation USD 438,390 in Unjust Enrichment

The two major local job banks 104 Corporation (known as Job Bank 104) and All Chinese Internet Inc. (known as Job Bank 1111) has been litigating over a trade secrete misappropriation and unfair competition case since 2004. Our partner Victor Lee and Parkson Hsu are attorneys who acted on behalf of the plaintiff 104 Corporation. In re-appeal, Taiwan High Court awarded NTD 14,160,000 (approximately USD 438,390) as unjust enrichment to 104 Corporation.

In 2002, an All Chinese Internet employee hacked VIP website of Job Bank 104 through the company’s Internet facilities, cracked Job bank 104’s data encryption and unlawfully appropriated resume and personal information of job seekers stored in Job Bank 104. All Chinese Internet Company then used the unlawfully obtained information to send e-mail invitations to around 296,341 potential customers for marketing Job Bank 1111. Owing that impairment to use of computers was not, yet, a statutory crime in 2002, the litigation was initially filed with the court on the grounds of Copyright Law violation and Fraud. Four relevant employees of All Chinese Internet Company were imposed 6-month imprisonment and fined NTD 180,000 each in the first instance. Furthermore, the Fair Trade Committee had fined All Chinese Internet Company NTD 1,500,000 (around USD 46,440) for its unfair competition conduct.

However, the plaintiff disagreed with the minimum monetary damages awarded by the first instance. The defendant also argued around the issue that All Chinese Internet Company had not been unjustly enriched, and that 104 Corporation had not suffered any loss. The Court adopts the plaintiff attorneys’ argument that, actual monetary gain or profit loss is not material to the constitution of unjust enrichment. As long as the data appropriated from Job Bank 104 had been stored and transmitted among employees of the company, the information had been possessed and put under the company’s control. As such, even though defendant had not enjoyed actual monetary gain, it nevertheless cannot deny the data information obtained through misappropriation; the defendant’s conduct has constituted unjust enrichment and should return the unlawful gain to the plaintiff.