算法爱好者 . 算法是程序员的内功！「算法爱好者」专注分享算法相关文章、工具资源和算法题，帮程序员修炼内 功。 近日，已停止运营的聚合搜索引擎 F 搜陷入法律风波，其开发者在 V 站发帖透露，F 搜被 360 起诉并索赔 500 万元。 这一消息引发了众多关注，也让人们再次将目光聚焦于搜索引擎领域的竞争。 以下文章来源于算法爱好者 ，作者小蒜 开发者自称咨询律师后发现，应对诉讼可能需要 1-2 年时间及 100-200 万元费用，而 F 搜本身并非营利项 目，无力承担这一成本。 F 搜主要通过调用谷歌和必应的搜索结果，运用自身算法进行整理，帮助用户高效获取所需内容，同时过滤掉 一些垃圾站点。2022 年，F 搜因域名被暂停解析，最终停止运营。 360 的诉求 此次 360 起诉 F 搜，一共提出了四项诉求。 F 搜开发者的回应 首先，要求 F 搜两被告立即停止不正当竞争行为，即停止实时访问、抓取、储存并使用 360 的图片搜索 数据。 其次，判令被告一在（早已关闭的）F 搜网站、（实际并不存在的）F 搜官方微信公众号以及官方新浪微 博的显著位置刊登声明消除影响，刊登时间不少于 30 日，字体为五号，显示范围全 ...

Group 1 - The core issue of low-price sales is its significant impact on market order and brand development, with complaints related to low-price sales increasing by 18% year-on-year in 2024 [1] - Low-price sales lead to a "price avalanche effect," causing a 40% decline in monthly sales for businesses maintaining original prices, forcing 70% of industry players to follow suit, resulting in a 12% drop in overall profit margins [3] - The prevalence of counterfeit products in low-price sales is alarming, with 35% of such products being fake, leading to a 200% increase in complaints for a major international beauty brand and a 27 percentage point drop in brand reputation within six months [3] Group 2 - Not all low-price sales are illegal; they must be assessed based on intent, market impact, and legal criteria, with examples of unfair competition including predatory pricing and counterfeit sales [4] - Legal low-price sales can occur under specific circumstances, such as managing perishable goods or promoting new products with a clear promotional period, as demonstrated by a supermarket increasing turnover of near-expiry goods by 60% [5][6] - The legal framework allows for price reductions based on cost savings or seasonal adjustments, provided they do not harm other businesses or disrupt market order [7]

作 者丨尹华禄 编 辑丨吴桂兴 遭遇碰瓷？东方甄选（0 1 7 9 7 .HK）拟起诉同名农业公司。 天眼查显示，近日，东方甄选（北京）科技有限公司（即"东方甄选"）与东方甄选（北京） 农 业 有 限 公 司 就 不 正 当 竞 争 纠 纷 案 件 新 增 开 庭 公 告 ， 原 告 为 东 方 甄 选 （ 北 京 ） 科 技 有 限 公 司，该案件将于5月2 7日在北京市石景山区人民法院开庭审理。 南财快讯记者了解到，《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第六条第二项显示，经营者不得 擅 自 使 用 他 人 有 一 定 影 响 的 企 业 名 称 （ 包 括 简 称 、 字 号 等 ） 、 社 会 组 织 名 称 （ 包 括 简 称 等）、姓名（包括笔名、艺名、译名等）。 据 浙 江 佑 平 律 师 事 务 所 介 绍 ， 如 果 被 任 用 名 字 的 企 业 属 于 知 名 公 司 或 者 有 一 定 影 响 力 的 公 司，那么被用了企业名称，是完全符合反不正当竞争法的禁止条款，属于侵权。 | 案号 | (2025) 京0107民初7860号 | 案由 | 不正当竞争纠纷 | | --- | --- | - ...

遭遇碰瓷？东方甄选（01797.HK）拟起诉同名农业公司。 天眼查显示，近日，东方甄选（北京）科技有限公司（即"东方甄选"）与东方甄选（北京）农业有限公 司就不正当竞争纠纷案件新增开庭公告，原告为东方甄选（北京）科技有限公司，该案件将于5月27日 在北京市石景山区人民法院开庭审理。 南财快讯记者了解到，《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第六条第二项显示，经营者不得擅自使用他 人有一定影响的企业名称（包括简称、字号等）、社会组织名称（包括简称等）、姓名（包括笔名、艺 名、译名等）。 据浙江佑平律师事务所介绍，如果被任用名字的企业属于知名公司或者有一定影响力的公司，那么被用 了企业名称，是完全符合反不正当竞争法的禁止条款，属于侵权。 被告东方甄选（北京）农业有限公司成立于2022年7月，注册资本2万元，法定代表人为冉飞龙，经营范 围包括谷物种植、农业科学研究和试验发展、新鲜水果零售、新鲜水果批发等。 该公司目前由东方思路（海南）科技有限公司全资持股，系中银金矿（海南）投资集团有限公司的孙公 司，股权穿透显示，冉彬、冉冉为最终出资人，持股比例为90%、10%。 据了解，该律所创立于2002年，是经北京市司法局依法批准 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the deceptive practices of businesses using misleading trademarks that confuse consumers and undermine fair trade principles [1][2][3] Group 1: Misleading Trademarks - Businesses are registering descriptive terms as trademarks and combining them with product names, creating confusion for consumers [2] - These "clever trademarks" exploit information asymmetry, leading to consumer deception and violation of consumer rights [2] - The use of misleading trademarks disrupts market order and creates an environment where dishonest practices thrive, pushing out honest competitors [2] Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - The article emphasizes the need for stricter regulations to prevent the registration of deceptive trademarks that mislead the public about product quality or origin [3] - It suggests that trademark examination should extend to actual usage scenarios, requiring applicants to submit packaging designs for review [3] - There is a call for a reward mechanism for reporting trademark infringements to encourage consumer participation in monitoring [3] Group 3: Ethical Business Practices - Trademarks should serve as a promise of quality rather than a tool for deception [3] - Businesses are urged to operate with integrity, providing accurate product information instead of manipulating trademarks for unfair gain [3]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the need for healthy competition in the market, moving away from harmful practices like "involution" and excessive price competition [1][2][3] - The recent discussions among various government departments highlight the importance of companies adhering to their social responsibilities and maintaining fair competition to protect consumer rights and promote a healthy market environment [1][3][5] - The call for innovation and improvement in product quality by leading companies is crucial for enhancing competitiveness and resilience in the industry [1][3] Group 2 - The necessity for strengthening legal frameworks related to fair competition is underscored, with ongoing revisions to laws such as the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Anti-Monopoly Law [4] - The 2025 legislative plan indicates a focus on enhancing regulations in key and emerging sectors to ensure effective supervision and penalties for unfair competition practices [4] - The emphasis on industry associations to promote self-regulation and compliance among their members is seen as a vital step towards maintaining market order [5][6] Group 3 - Companies are encouraged to adopt ESG reporting practices to demonstrate their progress in environmental, social, and governance areas, fostering accountability and transparency [6] - The current complex international economic landscape necessitates a stronger emphasis on regulating competition to encourage fair and legitimate practices while avoiding detrimental competition [6]

来源：半月谈微信公众号 作者：刘美子 如今，山寨食品的"势力范围"早已突破传统农村市场的局限，凭借与正品高度相似的包装、极具迷惑性 的名称以及低廉的价格，悄然潜入监管薄弱地带，在网购、外卖等平台以及一些线下零食店等渠道频频 "冒头"。 "搭车"线上售卖 "看着像老干妈，包装上的名字却是'陶碧华'""远看是金典牛奶，近看却是全典牛奶"……不少网友在社 交平台上晒出自己踩过的坑。曾经以农村市场为主要根据地的山寨食品，如今借助网购、外卖以及一些 新商业模式，大规模蔓延至线上平台，出现"搭车"售卖等现象。 直播间、线上购物、外卖平台成为山寨食品的温床。一些商家将山寨食品与餐食打包成套餐捆绑销售， 部分商家还使用"收藏店铺送饮料"或"低价加购饮料"等促销手段吸引顾客购买。网友反映，线上看这些 山寨食品外观与正品相似，极易误导消费者。 全链条整治山寨食品 近日，国家市场监管总局针对农村市场发起假冒伪劣食品专项整治行动，剑指原料污染、知假造假、误 导消费三大顽疾。打击山寨食品是一项系统性、长期性、广泛性的治理任务，需要多方面共同努力。 提高违法成本。受访专家认为，相对于不法行为获取的高额利润，罚款、吊销营业执照等较轻处罚起 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Beijing Haidian District People's Court ruled that Ocean Company engaged in unfair competition by extensively scraping and transferring data from Era Company, ordering Ocean Company to eliminate the impact and compensate Era Company with 2 million yuan in economic losses and 300,000 yuan in reasonable expenses [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Era Company operates a leading internet medical platform, accumulating significant data related to diagnosis and treatment over years of operation [1]. - Ocean Company operates a competing platform and is accused of scraping patient reviews and medical articles from Era Company's platform [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Arguments - Era Company claims that Ocean Company's actions violate business ethics and harm its competitive advantage, resulting in severe economic losses [1][2]. - Ocean Company argues that its platform operates in a different segment of the internet medical field, asserting that there is no competitive relationship and that the data belongs to users [2]. Group 3: Court's Findings - The court found that both companies operate in the same internet medical field, targeting overlapping user groups and services, thus establishing a competitive relationship [2]. - The court ruled that Era Company has legitimate rights to the user-generated content it collects and organizes, which is protected under anti-unfair competition laws [2][3]. Group 4: Outcome - The court determined that Ocean Company's actions constituted unfair competition, as it gained competitive advantages without investment or costs, violating principles of good faith and disrupting market order [3]. - After the ruling, Ocean Company appealed, but the second-instance court upheld the original judgment, which is now effective [4].

Core Viewpoint - The opening of "Pandu Lai" in Jiaxing, Zhejiang, raises questions about brand name similarity to the established "Pang Dong Lai," leading to potential legal and consumer perception issues [1][2]. Group 1: Brand Name Similarity - "Pandu Lai" has a name that closely resembles "Pang Dong Lai," which may cause consumer confusion and is subject to legal scrutiny under regulations that prevent unfair competition [1]. - The registration process for business names requires local authorities to ensure that new names do not infringe on existing brands, but the criteria for "similarity" can be ambiguous [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Actions and Consumer Perception - Following the opening, "Pang Dong Lai" has initiated legal actions, including sending a lawyer's letter and preparing for potential administrative review or litigation against "Pandu Lai" [2]. - Regardless of the legal outcome, "Pandu Lai" may struggle to win consumer trust due to the negative associations with being perceived as a "copycat" brand [2]. Group 3: Brand Building vs. Name Mimicking - The article emphasizes that successful brands like "Pang Dong Lai" focus on service quality and customer satisfaction rather than relying on name similarity for recognition [3]. - Companies are encouraged to invest in genuine brand development rather than seeking short-term gains through name imitation, as consumers are likely to see through such tactics [3].

Core Viewpoint - The opening of a new shopping mall named "胖都来" in Zhejiang has sparked controversy due to its similarity to the well-known brand "胖东来," leading to accusations of trademark infringement and consumer confusion [1][4]. Group 1: Mall Overview - The "胖都来" shopping mall covers a significant area with two sections, A and B, and primarily sells clothing and daily necessities sourced directly from nearby factories, allowing for competitive pricing [2]. - The mall's total property scale is approximately 300,000 cubic meters, including a 50,000 cubic meter experiential shopping center, a 30,000 cubic meter exhibition center, and a 20,000 cubic meter live streaming base. A second phase of 30,000 square meters for a smart commercial complex is expected to open in October [2]. Group 2: Trademark Controversy - The "胖东来" brand has officially responded to the naming of "胖都来," stating that they have filed a complaint with local market supervision authorities and sent a lawyer's letter to "胖都来" [3][4]. - Legal experts suggest that the name "胖都来" may constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition due to its close resemblance to "胖东来," which could confuse consumers regarding the relationship between the two entities [4].