Legal Analysis on the “2025 Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of the People’s Courts” Released by the Supreme People’s Court
Published 15 September 2025
Sarah Xuan
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court released the 2025 Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of the People’s Courts, selecting eight representative disputes over unfair competition. These cases cover multiple frontier fields including enterprise trade names, trade secrets, computer software, online platforms, live-stream marketing, commercial disparagement, data rights, and artificial intelligence models. They serve the dual functions of “normative interpretation” and “adjudicative guidance”, aiming to address the diversified manifestations of unfair competition in new business forms such as the digital economy, platform economy, and AI, to unify adjudication standards, clarify boundary rules, and maintain a fair and orderly market competition order.
This article sorts through these typical cases one by one and analyzes the guiding significance of their judicial judgments.
1. Dispute over the trade name “Mou Niu” — Determination of registering another’s “well-influential” trade nameCase No.: Supreme People’s Court (2024) Min Zai No. 224(Mou Niu Group Co., Ltd. v. Mou Niu Wang (Shandong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Xiang Mou — dispute over unfair competition) Basic Facts Mou Niu Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mou Niu Co.”) has long used the well-known “Mou Niu” series trademarks on Class 9 goods such as sockets. The trade name “Mou Niu (Electric)” has also been repeatedly recognized as a well-known trade name in Zhejiang Province. In 2020, Xiang Mou established Mou Niu Wang (Shandong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mou Niu Wang Co.”), registered the enterprise name containing “Mou Niu Wang” and filed annual reports continuously, and also applied to register trademarks containing “Mou Niu Wang.” Mou Niu Co. believed this behavior exploited its goodwill and was likely to cause confusion, and thus sued. The first-instance court held that Mou Niu Wang Co. should have been aware of the fame of the “Mou Niu” trade name yet still registered it, showing clear intent, and since their business scopes were related, it constituted unfair competition; it ordered the defendants to cease use and pay RMB 100,000 in damages. The second-instance court held that enterprise name registration does not constitute “commercial use” under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and that no evidence showed actual external use, so it dismissed the claims. Mou Niu Co. applied for retrial.The Supreme People’s Court held upon retrial that “use” under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes registration of enterprise names, and registration itself marks the start of use. Combined with the enterprise annual reports and trademark applications, it could be determined that Mou Niu Wang Co. had commercial intent, so even if it had not actually operated, it still constituted “use.” The SPC thus revoked the second-instance judgment and upheld the first-instance judgment. Typical Significance This case is a typical example of protecting business operators’ “well-influential” trade names. It clarifies that registering another party’s well-influential trade name as one’s own enterprise name in a similar business field, even if the enterprise has not yet operated but shows intent to operate, falls within the scope of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This stops imitation and confusion from the source and effectively curbs dishonest behaviors like “free-riding” and “passing off.”
2. Dispute over “Centrifugal Compressor Selection” software and trade secret infringement — Determining hidden establishment of competing companies and liability for trade secret infringementCase No.: Supreme People’s Court (2022) Zhi Min Zhong No. 1592(Shen Mou Group Co., Ltd. and Shenyang Tou Mou Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Shenyang Si Mou Machinery Co., Ltd., Shenyang Si Mou Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Sun Mouliang, Yin Mouyang, Wu Moupou — dispute over software copyright and trade secrets) Basic Facts Shen Mou Group and its subsidiary Tou Mou Co. owned core centrifugal compressor technologies (including basic stage data of impeller models and selection software). Several former employees secretly set up Si Mou Co. and its subsidiary while still employed, illegally obtained drawings, software, and data involved, and manufactured products. Although they promised to stop and the case was withdrawn after settlement, they continued using the technologies. The SPC on appeal found that the code-naming rules of the impellers matched the plaintiff’s trade secrets, the defendants gave no reasonable explanation, and provided no evidence of independent R&D. It held the selection software and basic data had a one-to-one correspondence, and the defendants used them improperly and continuously, constituting both trade secret and software copyright infringement; employees secretly setting up a competing company and transferring technologies breached their duty of loyalty and constituted joint infringement. The court ordered the companies and main responsible individuals to cease using the technologies and jointly pay RMB 166 million, with additional delay fines to enforce compliance. Typical Significance This case is a typical example of cracking down on employees secretly setting up competing companies and stealing their original employer’s trade secrets. It clarifies issues of burden of proof for repeated infringement, employee liability for hidden company setup, recognition of infringement involving one-to-one data-software relations, and statute of limitations for continuing infringement damages.
3. Dispute over “Natural Proteinase 3” trade secret infringement — Determination of secrecy of an overall technical solutionCase No.: SPC (2023) Zhi Min Zhong No. 2913 / Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court (2022) E01 Zhi Min Chu No. 707(Ai Mou Diagnostics Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Bo Mou Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Sun Mou — trade secret infringement) Basic Facts Ai Mou Co. developed a process to isolate and purify natural proteinase 3 (PR3) from human blood, which was its trade secret. Core employee Sun Mou left, became Bo Mou Co.’s legal representative, disclosed and used the technology for profit and applied for patents, resulting in the technology being made public. The first-instance court found the patents essentially identical to the secret technology, that Bo Mou used it to produce PR3, and Sun Mou breached confidentiality duties, constituting joint infringement, and ordered RMB 1.8 million damages. Bo Mou and Sun appealed, claiming the technology was public; Ai Mou claimed the damages were too low.The SPC held the technology was a systematic process formed via repeated experiments and optimization, though containing some known elements, was not known as a whole, and thus still a trade secret, and upheld the original judgment. Typical Significance This case is a typical example of protecting foreign right holders’ trade secrets. It emphasizes that a systematic, complete technical solution formed via experimentation and optimization may still be secret, and fragmented public information cannot simply be pieced together to deny secrecy. It promotes cross-border protection of trade secrets, fairly safeguards foreign enterprises’ rights, and strengthens their investment confidence.
4. Dispute over unfair competition on third-party online game trading platforms — Determination of unfair competition in game item trading servicesCase No.: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2022) Yue 73 Min Zhong No. 3597 / Guangzhou Internet Court (2020) Yue 0192 Min Chu No. 46315(Shenzhen Mou Computer Systems Co., Ltd. v. Zhengzhou Mou Information Technology Co., Ltd. — unfair competition dispute) Basic Facts Shenzhen Mou Computer Co. operates a well-known online game. Zhengzhou Mou Co. provided trading services for the game’s virtual items and currency on its platform. The plaintiff claimed this behavior encouraged illicit activities such as bots, gold farming, and account theft, harmed its economic interests and user rights, and constituted unfair competition. The defendant argued it was qualified, operated legally, and users had the right to dispose of their virtual property. The court held that the value of virtual property is jointly constructed by the operator and users, and users’ rights are limited by game rules and lawful sources; virtual property obtained via bots or other illegal means is not protected. Zhengzhou Mou knew of the bot/gold farming risks yet still facilitated trades, harming the operator’s and public interests, and thus constituted unfair competition.The court ordered Zhengzhou Mou to stop trading game currency of unverifiable legal sources and to pay RMB 3.03 million in damages. The appeal was rejected and the original judgment upheld. Typical Significance This case is a novel type of network unfair competition dispute involving third-party game trading platforms. The judgment integrates virtual property protection with market order and personal information protection, curbs black/grey market activities like gold farming and money laundering, and guides the regulated development of such platforms. It contributes to a healthy and orderly digital economy ecosystem.
5. Dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition in “traffic-attracting live-stream sales” — Determination of confusion through imitation during live-stream traffic diversionCase No.: Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang (2025) Zhe 08 Min Zhong No. 563 / Qujiang District People’s Court of Quzhou (2024) Zhe 0803 Min Chu No. 1192(Hua Mou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Quzhou Da Mou E-commerce Co., Ltd., Zhang Mou, Beijing Dou Mou Technology Co., Ltd. et al. — trademark infringement and unfair competition) Basic Facts Hua Mou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hua Mou”) owns the registered “Hua Mou” trademarks on Class 9 products such as mobile phones, recognized as well-known marks, and its “Hua Mou” trade name has “certain influence.” Quzhou Da Mou E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Da Mou”) and its former legal representative Zhang Mou, without authorization, used the “Hua Mou” marks in numerous short videos to attract traffic through several Douyin (TikTok China) accounts, decorated their live-stream rooms to closely resemble Hua Mou stores, and highlighted the marks via props, clothing, and language while mainly selling non-Hua Mou products and earning sales commissions. Hua Mou claimed this was trademark infringement and unfair competition, requesting cessation and RMB 1.1 million in damages. The first-instance court found Da Mou and Zhang’s frequent unauthorized use exceeded indicative fair use, was enough to confuse consumers, and also that their live room layout and promotions caused confusion, constituting infringement. Based on commissions and serious circumstances, it applied triple punitive damages and awarded RMB 1.1 million.Da Mou and Zhang appealed. The Quzhou Intermediate Court held their all-around parasitic use of Hua Mou’s well-known marks misled consumers and constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The first-instance damages were appropriate, and the appeal was rejected. Typical Significance This case typifies cracking down on trademark infringement and unfair competition in live-stream sales. It clarifies that highlighting others’ well-known marks through platform mechanisms and algorithms for improper traffic diversion causing confusion constitutes infringement. It underscores strict brand protection, punishing unfair competition, and promotes a healthy live-stream industry.
6. Dispute over “car maintenance services” unfair competition — Determination of commercial disparagementCase No.: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2025) Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 33 / Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court (2024) Hu 0112 Min Chu No. 3840(Shanghai Mou Tu Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Mou Dong Century Trading Co., Ltd., Beijing Mou Dong Century Information Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Mou Guangxing Information Technology Co., Ltd. — unfair competition) Basic Facts Shanghai Mou Tu Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mou Tu”) has long used the “Mou Hu” and “Mou Hu Car Maintenance” trademarks in car service and has high market recognition. Beijing Mou Dong Trading, Beijing Mou Dong Information, and Beijing Mou Guangxing Information (hereinafter “the three defendants”) launched a “Zhen Hu Price” car maintenance product, using the word “Zhen Hu Price” with a “Hu” character similar to Mou Tu’s trademarks, and in ads used lines like “Car care also ‘Hu’ painted?” “Car care also ‘Hu’ messed?” and showed an anthropomorphic tiger being knocked down, causing viewers to think of “Mou Hu” and misunderstand.Mou Tu claimed they spread false or misleading information to damage its reputation, constituting commercial disparagement, and sought cessation and damages. The first-instance court found the three defendants disseminated misleading information in low-price marketing, constituting commercial disparagement, and awarded RMB 5 million. They appealed. The Shanghai IP Court held the first-instance findings clear and law correct, that their acts went beyond normal advertising and harmed Mou Tu’s reputation, constituting unfair competition, and upheld the ruling. Typical Significance This case typifies regulating commercial disparagement. It clarifies the boundary between legitimate advertising and unfair acts harming competitors’ reputation, firmly stopping misleading information that damages others’ goodwill. In the fast-growing platform economy, it exemplifies protecting fair competition.
7. Dispute over “moving store software” copying and data scraping — Determination of unfair competition infringing data rightsCase No.: Jiangsu High People’s Court (2024) Su Min Zhong No. 212 / Zhenjiang Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Su 11 Min Chu No. 29(Zhejiang Tao Mou Network Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tian Mou Network Co., Ltd. v. Zhenjiang Mou Feng Software Co., Ltd., Zhenjiang Mou Tao Information Software Development Co., Ltd. — unfair competition) Basic Facts Zhejiang Tao Mou and Zhejiang Tian Mou (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) operate major e-commerce platforms. Zhenjiang Mou Feng Software and Zhenjiang Mou Tao Information (hereinafter “the defendants”) developed “moving store software” that bypassed platform verification and anti-crawling, scraped massive product data from the plaintiffs’ platforms, copied them to other platforms to set up “stockless stores,” and placed orders back on the plaintiffs’ platforms, diverting huge traffic and transactions. The plaintiffs claimed this usurped their costly data resources and transaction opportunities and sought RMB 20 million. The first-instance court found the defendants’ large-scale scraping increased costs and diluted attention, constituting unfair competition, and awarded RMB 5 million. They appealed. The Jiangsu High Court held the plaintiffs’ data was a scarce business resource formed by heavy investment and enjoyed competitive interests, and the defendants’ unauthorized use caused substantial substitution, constituting unfair competition, and dismissed the appeal. Typical Significance This case typifies protecting data rights under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. It explored rules for judicial data protection, confirmed data interests, curbed illegal mass scraping, and set an example for new-type online unfair competition disputes, showing courts’ stance on safeguarding data rights and fair competition order.
8. Dispute over “comic transformation effect” — Protection of AI model structures and parameters under the Anti-Unfair Competition LawCase No.: Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2023) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 3802 / Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court (2023) Jing 0105 Min Chu No. 71391(Beijing Dou Mou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Yi Mouke Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. — unfair competition) Basic Facts Beijing Dou Mou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dou Mou”) launched a “comic transformation effect” feature in its app, which used AI models to turn users’ images into comic style in real time, investing heavily in developing its model structures and parameters. Yi Mouke later launched a “shoujo comic effect” highly similar in effect and overlapping in user groups and market. Dou Mou alleged Yi Mouke directly copied and used its model structures and parameters, constituting unfair competition. The first-instance court found Yi Mouke harmed Dou Mou’s competitive interests, violating Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and ordered cessation and over RMB 5 million in damages. Yi Mouke appealed. The Beijing IP Court held Dou Mou’s model structures and parameters formed via data training and tuning constituted protected competitive interests, that Yi Mouke likely accessed them, lacked independent R&D proof, and had highly consistent effects, so it was presumed to have directly used the models, disrupting AI industry competition. It upheld the ruling. Typical Significance This case typifies protecting developers’ competitive interests in AI model structures and parameters. It clarifies that models formed through data training and optimization can bring innovative advantages and business returns, and are protected competitive interests. It guides regulated AI industry development and maintains competition order in emerging fields.
[Conclusion] These typical cases released by the Supreme People’s Court respond to new types of unfair competition emerging in the digital economy, platform economy, and AI. They clarify protection rules for new competitive interests such as trade names, trade secrets, trademarks, data rights, and AI models. They provide guiding precedents for courts and clear compliance coordinates for enterprises to avoid competition risks. In an increasingly competitive market, enterprises should strengthen IP and trade secret management, be cautious in advertising and online traffic strategies, lawfully use data resources, and avoid legal red lines to achieve a sound balance of compliance and competition.
This article sorts through these typical cases one by one and analyzes the guiding significance of their judicial judgments.
1. Dispute over the trade name “Mou Niu” — Determination of registering another’s “well-influential” trade nameCase No.: Supreme People’s Court (2024) Min Zai No. 224(Mou Niu Group Co., Ltd. v. Mou Niu Wang (Shandong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Xiang Mou — dispute over unfair competition) Basic Facts Mou Niu Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mou Niu Co.”) has long used the well-known “Mou Niu” series trademarks on Class 9 goods such as sockets. The trade name “Mou Niu (Electric)” has also been repeatedly recognized as a well-known trade name in Zhejiang Province. In 2020, Xiang Mou established Mou Niu Wang (Shandong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mou Niu Wang Co.”), registered the enterprise name containing “Mou Niu Wang” and filed annual reports continuously, and also applied to register trademarks containing “Mou Niu Wang.” Mou Niu Co. believed this behavior exploited its goodwill and was likely to cause confusion, and thus sued. The first-instance court held that Mou Niu Wang Co. should have been aware of the fame of the “Mou Niu” trade name yet still registered it, showing clear intent, and since their business scopes were related, it constituted unfair competition; it ordered the defendants to cease use and pay RMB 100,000 in damages. The second-instance court held that enterprise name registration does not constitute “commercial use” under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and that no evidence showed actual external use, so it dismissed the claims. Mou Niu Co. applied for retrial.The Supreme People’s Court held upon retrial that “use” under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes registration of enterprise names, and registration itself marks the start of use. Combined with the enterprise annual reports and trademark applications, it could be determined that Mou Niu Wang Co. had commercial intent, so even if it had not actually operated, it still constituted “use.” The SPC thus revoked the second-instance judgment and upheld the first-instance judgment. Typical Significance This case is a typical example of protecting business operators’ “well-influential” trade names. It clarifies that registering another party’s well-influential trade name as one’s own enterprise name in a similar business field, even if the enterprise has not yet operated but shows intent to operate, falls within the scope of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This stops imitation and confusion from the source and effectively curbs dishonest behaviors like “free-riding” and “passing off.”
2. Dispute over “Centrifugal Compressor Selection” software and trade secret infringement — Determining hidden establishment of competing companies and liability for trade secret infringementCase No.: Supreme People’s Court (2022) Zhi Min Zhong No. 1592(Shen Mou Group Co., Ltd. and Shenyang Tou Mou Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Shenyang Si Mou Machinery Co., Ltd., Shenyang Si Mou Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Sun Mouliang, Yin Mouyang, Wu Moupou — dispute over software copyright and trade secrets) Basic Facts Shen Mou Group and its subsidiary Tou Mou Co. owned core centrifugal compressor technologies (including basic stage data of impeller models and selection software). Several former employees secretly set up Si Mou Co. and its subsidiary while still employed, illegally obtained drawings, software, and data involved, and manufactured products. Although they promised to stop and the case was withdrawn after settlement, they continued using the technologies. The SPC on appeal found that the code-naming rules of the impellers matched the plaintiff’s trade secrets, the defendants gave no reasonable explanation, and provided no evidence of independent R&D. It held the selection software and basic data had a one-to-one correspondence, and the defendants used them improperly and continuously, constituting both trade secret and software copyright infringement; employees secretly setting up a competing company and transferring technologies breached their duty of loyalty and constituted joint infringement. The court ordered the companies and main responsible individuals to cease using the technologies and jointly pay RMB 166 million, with additional delay fines to enforce compliance. Typical Significance This case is a typical example of cracking down on employees secretly setting up competing companies and stealing their original employer’s trade secrets. It clarifies issues of burden of proof for repeated infringement, employee liability for hidden company setup, recognition of infringement involving one-to-one data-software relations, and statute of limitations for continuing infringement damages.
3. Dispute over “Natural Proteinase 3” trade secret infringement — Determination of secrecy of an overall technical solutionCase No.: SPC (2023) Zhi Min Zhong No. 2913 / Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court (2022) E01 Zhi Min Chu No. 707(Ai Mou Diagnostics Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Bo Mou Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Sun Mou — trade secret infringement) Basic Facts Ai Mou Co. developed a process to isolate and purify natural proteinase 3 (PR3) from human blood, which was its trade secret. Core employee Sun Mou left, became Bo Mou Co.’s legal representative, disclosed and used the technology for profit and applied for patents, resulting in the technology being made public. The first-instance court found the patents essentially identical to the secret technology, that Bo Mou used it to produce PR3, and Sun Mou breached confidentiality duties, constituting joint infringement, and ordered RMB 1.8 million damages. Bo Mou and Sun appealed, claiming the technology was public; Ai Mou claimed the damages were too low.The SPC held the technology was a systematic process formed via repeated experiments and optimization, though containing some known elements, was not known as a whole, and thus still a trade secret, and upheld the original judgment. Typical Significance This case is a typical example of protecting foreign right holders’ trade secrets. It emphasizes that a systematic, complete technical solution formed via experimentation and optimization may still be secret, and fragmented public information cannot simply be pieced together to deny secrecy. It promotes cross-border protection of trade secrets, fairly safeguards foreign enterprises’ rights, and strengthens their investment confidence.
4. Dispute over unfair competition on third-party online game trading platforms — Determination of unfair competition in game item trading servicesCase No.: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2022) Yue 73 Min Zhong No. 3597 / Guangzhou Internet Court (2020) Yue 0192 Min Chu No. 46315(Shenzhen Mou Computer Systems Co., Ltd. v. Zhengzhou Mou Information Technology Co., Ltd. — unfair competition dispute) Basic Facts Shenzhen Mou Computer Co. operates a well-known online game. Zhengzhou Mou Co. provided trading services for the game’s virtual items and currency on its platform. The plaintiff claimed this behavior encouraged illicit activities such as bots, gold farming, and account theft, harmed its economic interests and user rights, and constituted unfair competition. The defendant argued it was qualified, operated legally, and users had the right to dispose of their virtual property. The court held that the value of virtual property is jointly constructed by the operator and users, and users’ rights are limited by game rules and lawful sources; virtual property obtained via bots or other illegal means is not protected. Zhengzhou Mou knew of the bot/gold farming risks yet still facilitated trades, harming the operator’s and public interests, and thus constituted unfair competition.The court ordered Zhengzhou Mou to stop trading game currency of unverifiable legal sources and to pay RMB 3.03 million in damages. The appeal was rejected and the original judgment upheld. Typical Significance This case is a novel type of network unfair competition dispute involving third-party game trading platforms. The judgment integrates virtual property protection with market order and personal information protection, curbs black/grey market activities like gold farming and money laundering, and guides the regulated development of such platforms. It contributes to a healthy and orderly digital economy ecosystem.
5. Dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition in “traffic-attracting live-stream sales” — Determination of confusion through imitation during live-stream traffic diversionCase No.: Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang (2025) Zhe 08 Min Zhong No. 563 / Qujiang District People’s Court of Quzhou (2024) Zhe 0803 Min Chu No. 1192(Hua Mou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Quzhou Da Mou E-commerce Co., Ltd., Zhang Mou, Beijing Dou Mou Technology Co., Ltd. et al. — trademark infringement and unfair competition) Basic Facts Hua Mou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hua Mou”) owns the registered “Hua Mou” trademarks on Class 9 products such as mobile phones, recognized as well-known marks, and its “Hua Mou” trade name has “certain influence.” Quzhou Da Mou E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Da Mou”) and its former legal representative Zhang Mou, without authorization, used the “Hua Mou” marks in numerous short videos to attract traffic through several Douyin (TikTok China) accounts, decorated their live-stream rooms to closely resemble Hua Mou stores, and highlighted the marks via props, clothing, and language while mainly selling non-Hua Mou products and earning sales commissions. Hua Mou claimed this was trademark infringement and unfair competition, requesting cessation and RMB 1.1 million in damages. The first-instance court found Da Mou and Zhang’s frequent unauthorized use exceeded indicative fair use, was enough to confuse consumers, and also that their live room layout and promotions caused confusion, constituting infringement. Based on commissions and serious circumstances, it applied triple punitive damages and awarded RMB 1.1 million.Da Mou and Zhang appealed. The Quzhou Intermediate Court held their all-around parasitic use of Hua Mou’s well-known marks misled consumers and constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The first-instance damages were appropriate, and the appeal was rejected. Typical Significance This case typifies cracking down on trademark infringement and unfair competition in live-stream sales. It clarifies that highlighting others’ well-known marks through platform mechanisms and algorithms for improper traffic diversion causing confusion constitutes infringement. It underscores strict brand protection, punishing unfair competition, and promotes a healthy live-stream industry.
6. Dispute over “car maintenance services” unfair competition — Determination of commercial disparagementCase No.: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2025) Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 33 / Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court (2024) Hu 0112 Min Chu No. 3840(Shanghai Mou Tu Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Mou Dong Century Trading Co., Ltd., Beijing Mou Dong Century Information Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Mou Guangxing Information Technology Co., Ltd. — unfair competition) Basic Facts Shanghai Mou Tu Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mou Tu”) has long used the “Mou Hu” and “Mou Hu Car Maintenance” trademarks in car service and has high market recognition. Beijing Mou Dong Trading, Beijing Mou Dong Information, and Beijing Mou Guangxing Information (hereinafter “the three defendants”) launched a “Zhen Hu Price” car maintenance product, using the word “Zhen Hu Price” with a “Hu” character similar to Mou Tu’s trademarks, and in ads used lines like “Car care also ‘Hu’ painted?” “Car care also ‘Hu’ messed?” and showed an anthropomorphic tiger being knocked down, causing viewers to think of “Mou Hu” and misunderstand.Mou Tu claimed they spread false or misleading information to damage its reputation, constituting commercial disparagement, and sought cessation and damages. The first-instance court found the three defendants disseminated misleading information in low-price marketing, constituting commercial disparagement, and awarded RMB 5 million. They appealed. The Shanghai IP Court held the first-instance findings clear and law correct, that their acts went beyond normal advertising and harmed Mou Tu’s reputation, constituting unfair competition, and upheld the ruling. Typical Significance This case typifies regulating commercial disparagement. It clarifies the boundary between legitimate advertising and unfair acts harming competitors’ reputation, firmly stopping misleading information that damages others’ goodwill. In the fast-growing platform economy, it exemplifies protecting fair competition.
7. Dispute over “moving store software” copying and data scraping — Determination of unfair competition infringing data rightsCase No.: Jiangsu High People’s Court (2024) Su Min Zhong No. 212 / Zhenjiang Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Su 11 Min Chu No. 29(Zhejiang Tao Mou Network Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tian Mou Network Co., Ltd. v. Zhenjiang Mou Feng Software Co., Ltd., Zhenjiang Mou Tao Information Software Development Co., Ltd. — unfair competition) Basic Facts Zhejiang Tao Mou and Zhejiang Tian Mou (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) operate major e-commerce platforms. Zhenjiang Mou Feng Software and Zhenjiang Mou Tao Information (hereinafter “the defendants”) developed “moving store software” that bypassed platform verification and anti-crawling, scraped massive product data from the plaintiffs’ platforms, copied them to other platforms to set up “stockless stores,” and placed orders back on the plaintiffs’ platforms, diverting huge traffic and transactions. The plaintiffs claimed this usurped their costly data resources and transaction opportunities and sought RMB 20 million. The first-instance court found the defendants’ large-scale scraping increased costs and diluted attention, constituting unfair competition, and awarded RMB 5 million. They appealed. The Jiangsu High Court held the plaintiffs’ data was a scarce business resource formed by heavy investment and enjoyed competitive interests, and the defendants’ unauthorized use caused substantial substitution, constituting unfair competition, and dismissed the appeal. Typical Significance This case typifies protecting data rights under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. It explored rules for judicial data protection, confirmed data interests, curbed illegal mass scraping, and set an example for new-type online unfair competition disputes, showing courts’ stance on safeguarding data rights and fair competition order.
8. Dispute over “comic transformation effect” — Protection of AI model structures and parameters under the Anti-Unfair Competition LawCase No.: Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2023) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 3802 / Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court (2023) Jing 0105 Min Chu No. 71391(Beijing Dou Mou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Yi Mouke Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. — unfair competition) Basic Facts Beijing Dou Mou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dou Mou”) launched a “comic transformation effect” feature in its app, which used AI models to turn users’ images into comic style in real time, investing heavily in developing its model structures and parameters. Yi Mouke later launched a “shoujo comic effect” highly similar in effect and overlapping in user groups and market. Dou Mou alleged Yi Mouke directly copied and used its model structures and parameters, constituting unfair competition. The first-instance court found Yi Mouke harmed Dou Mou’s competitive interests, violating Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and ordered cessation and over RMB 5 million in damages. Yi Mouke appealed. The Beijing IP Court held Dou Mou’s model structures and parameters formed via data training and tuning constituted protected competitive interests, that Yi Mouke likely accessed them, lacked independent R&D proof, and had highly consistent effects, so it was presumed to have directly used the models, disrupting AI industry competition. It upheld the ruling. Typical Significance This case typifies protecting developers’ competitive interests in AI model structures and parameters. It clarifies that models formed through data training and optimization can bring innovative advantages and business returns, and are protected competitive interests. It guides regulated AI industry development and maintains competition order in emerging fields.
[Conclusion] These typical cases released by the Supreme People’s Court respond to new types of unfair competition emerging in the digital economy, platform economy, and AI. They clarify protection rules for new competitive interests such as trade names, trade secrets, trademarks, data rights, and AI models. They provide guiding precedents for courts and clear compliance coordinates for enterprises to avoid competition risks. In an increasingly competitive market, enterprises should strengthen IP and trade secret management, be cautious in advertising and online traffic strategies, lawfully use data resources, and avoid legal red lines to achieve a sound balance of compliance and competition.