Core Viewpoint - Nintendo is suing accessory manufacturer Genki for allegedly revealing details about the Switch 2 console before its official release, claiming trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition [1][3][4] Group 1: Legal Actions - Nintendo has filed a lawsuit against Genki, accusing the company of trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition related to its planned sales of accessory products for the Switch 2 [1][3] - The lawsuit was prompted by Genki's claims of having a "replica" of the Switch 2 before its official announcement, which included features consistent with leaked information about the console [3][4] Group 2: Events Leading to the Lawsuit - In January, during CES 2025, Genki made headlines by claiming to have a physical replica of the Switch 2, which led to a confrontation between Nintendo's legal team and Genki at the event [3] - Following discussions with Nintendo, Genki closed its booth at CES just before the event concluded [3] Group 3: Specific Allegations - Nintendo alleges that Genki's CEO Eddie Tsai engaged in actions on social media that infringed on Nintendo's trademark rights, particularly in promoting Switch 2 accessories [4] - The lawsuit highlights that Genki released a promotional video on April 2, coinciding with Nintendo's announcement of the Switch 2's release date, which Nintendo claims was a deliberate act of false advertising [4]

5月2日晚间，"胖东来向胖都来寄律师函"话题一度登上微博热搜第二位。 浙江胖都来卖场开业 活动现场有女明星参与 5月1日，浙江胖都来卖场在其账号发布了开业视频，活动现场有女明星参与。该账号此前发布的视频中，也有多位明星艺人送上祝福。主页信 息显示，该卖场位于嘉兴市海宁市，地理位置接近杭州市。 5月1日，浙江嘉兴一家名为胖都来的卖场举办开业活动。因其名称与品牌胖东来相似，引发争议。2日，胖东来方面回应称，已经取证并向对方 邮寄律师函。 PANG D U LAI YINGZHONG HOLDIN 搜索 奧特 著名艾演员、制片人 咱们这个胖都来 764 不少网友直言胖都来"东施效颦""山寨的味道"。 浙江胖都来卖场开业（截图自卖场社交账号视频） 浙江胖都来卖场（截图自卖场社交账号视频） 胖东来：已发律师函 胖都来工作人员：没有刻意模仿 有网友发现，胖东来账号留言称，感谢大家对胖东来的关注和反馈，关于"胖都来"，他们已经取证并向市场监督管理局提交投诉书，也给"胖都 来"公司成功邮寄了律师函。 胖东来方面会持续跟进此事，有阶段性的结果也会通过他们的账号进行公示。 据极目新闻报道，记者联系到许昌市胖东来超市有限公司。 办 ...

来源丨21财经客户端、极目新闻、潇湘晨报、公开信息 5月1日，浙江嘉兴一家名为胖都来的卖场举办开业活动。因其名称与品牌胖东来相似，引发争议。 2日，胖东来方面回应称，已经取证并向对方邮寄律师函。 5月2日晚间，"胖东来向胖都来寄律师函"话题一度登上微博热搜第二位。 01 浙江胖都来卖场开业，活动现场有女明星参与 5月1日，浙江胖都来卖场在其账号发布了开业视频，活动现场有女明星参与。该账号此前发布 的视频中，也有多位明星艺人送上祝福。主页信息显示，该卖场位于嘉兴市海宁市，地理位置接 近杭州市。 寓意着丰盈、富足、 张俊 | 普吕作曲家 7 128 ♥ 121 1647 V 盈中控股 胖都来" H # and Ha PANG DU LAI 视频 胖都来盛 c | 0Q乐享生活 购在都来 AA 日十十五元 ♡ 1676 2 286 学来更多丰富的生活 e 如何为社会创造价值 PANG DII LA AA ■Q乐享生活 购在都来 と 时间: 5月1-3日 e PANG DU LAI YINGZHONG HOLDIN 搜索 興特 著名艾演员、制片人 3110 咱们这个胖都来 764 浙江胖都来卖场开业（截图自卖场社交账 ...

5月1日，浙江嘉兴一家名为胖都来的卖场举办开业活动。因其名称与品牌胖东来相似，引发争议。2 日，胖东来方面回应称，已经取证并向对方邮寄律师函。 5月2日晚间，"胖东来向胖都来寄律师函"话题一度登上微博热搜第二位。 浙江胖都来卖场开业 活动现场有女明星参与 5月1日，浙江胖都来卖场在其账号发布了开业视频，活动现场有女明星参与。该账号此前发布的视频 中，也有多位明星艺人送上祝福。主页信息显示，该卖场位于嘉兴市海宁市，地理位置接近杭州市。 FANG DU LAI HOLDIN YINGZHONG 搜索 奥特 Hine 番名艾演员、制片人 3110 咱们这个胖都来 764 浙江胖都来卖场开业（截图自卖场社交账号视频） 浙江胖都来卖场（截图自卖场社交账号视频） 不少网友直言胖都来"东施效颦""山寨的味道"。 胖东来：已发律师函 胖都来工作人员：没有刻意模仿 寓意着丰盈、富足、 张俊 号作曲 7 1647 128 121 胖都来 了 盈中控股 文庫 张 DAT 都需需 8 iiQ乐享生活 购在都来 c) N 0+ H 2867*更多丰富的生活 ♡ 1676 0 如何为從会创造价值 PANG DI LAT Q乐享生活 购在 ...

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 unfair competition [1][5]. Group 1: Company Responses - "胖东来" has acknowledged the situation and confirmed that they have filed a complaint with local market supervision authorities regarding "胖都来," citing potential consumer confusion due to the similarity in names [3][4]. - The company has also sent a lawyer's letter to "胖都来" and will continue to monitor the situation, providing updates through their official channels [3][4]. Group 2: Legal Implications - The name "胖都来" is suspected of constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition, as "胖东来" has significant market recognition, and the two names are phonetically and visually similar, which could mislead consumers [5]. - According to Chinese trademark law, using a name that closely resembles a registered trademark without permission can lead to confusion and is considered an infringement of exclusive trademark rights [5]. Group 3: Business Model Considerations - While business models can be learned and adapted, they are not protected by intellectual property laws. Companies must adhere to principles of good faith and honesty in market activities [6][7]. - Businesses should avoid simply copying others' branding or names, as this could infringe on trademark rights and lead to claims of unfair competition [7]. Group 4: Financial Performance - As of April 30, "胖东来" reported a sales figure of 17.49 billion yuan for April, with a cumulative annual sales total exceeding 80 billion yuan, reaching 80.27 billion yuan [7].

Core Points - The Supreme Court's ruling on a case involving "ticket grabbing software" has garnered significant attention, marking the first instance in China where such software is recognized as constituting unfair competition [1] - The case clarifies the illegal nature and dangers of "ticket grabbing" behavior, serving as a warning to sellers of such software and providing a legal precedent for ticketing entities affected by these practices [1][2] Group 1 - The plaintiff in the case is a well-known entertainment ticketing agency, while the defendant sold "ticket grabbing" software on a second-hand shopping platform, which simulated human operations to increase the chances of successful ticket purchases [1] - The software's operation does not represent technological innovation but rather undermines fair competition by providing users with an unfair advantage in purchasing tickets [2] - The legal framework, specifically Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, prohibits operators from using technical means to disrupt the normal operation of other businesses' online products or services, which the court found applicable in this case [2] Group 2 - The legal implications of this case extend beyond individual instances, offering insights into combating broader ticketing fraud issues [3] - Ticketing entities have two main legal avenues for recourse: filing lawsuits against sellers of ticket grabbing software or reporting to market regulatory authorities for enforcement actions [3] - Regulatory bodies are encouraged to proactively address ticket grabbing behaviors rather than waiting for complaints, enhancing oversight to eliminate the conditions that allow such software to thrive [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has ruled a case of "unfair competition by ticket grabbing software," marking a significant precedent in protecting fair market practices in the ticketing industry [1][2] Group 1: Case Overview - The plaintiff is a well-known entertainment ticketing agency, while the defendant sold ticket grabbing "plug-in" software on a second-hand shopping platform [1] - This case is the first of its kind in China to determine that ticket grabbing software constitutes unfair competition, highlighting its implications for maintaining a healthy ticket purchasing order and market competition environment [1] Group 2: Market Competition Impact - The defendant's actions severely disrupt the fair competition environment, as ticketing platforms invest substantial resources to create stable and fair purchasing systems [1] - The use of ticket grabbing software gives users an unfair advantage, disadvantaging consumers who follow the rules and purchase tickets through normal channels, thus harming their rights [1] - The presence of such software increases operational costs for ticketing platforms, leading to excessive order requests that can overwhelm systems, slow response times, and even risk system crashes [1] Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Implications - The Anti-Unfair Competition Law explicitly prohibits operators from using technical means to disrupt the normal operation of other operators' legitimate network products or services, making the defendant's actions a clear case of unfair competition [2] - This case serves as a reference for combating the online black and gray market, alerting those involved in ticket grabbing services and software development [2] - There is a need for collaborative efforts to maintain a fair ticket purchasing order, with regulatory bodies enhancing oversight and ticketing platforms improving their technical defenses against such software [2]

Core Viewpoint - The case of "unfair competition by ticket-snatching software" has gained attention following the Supreme People's Court's release of typical intellectual property cases, highlighting the legal implications of software that manipulates ticket purchasing processes [1] Group 1: Case Overview - The plaintiff is a well-known entertainment ticketing agency involved in various ticket sales, including concerts, sports events, dramas, and family exhibitions [1] - The defendant, Zheng Mouzhong, sold ticket-snatching "plug-in" software on a second-hand shopping platform, which was designed to enhance the speed of order information entry and increase the likelihood of successful ticket purchases on the plaintiff's app [1] Group 2: Technical Aspects - The developed ticket-snatching software utilizes technical means to simulate human operations, allowing for rapid submission of ticket orders [1] - This software can repeatedly submit requests in a short time frame, significantly boosting the chances of securing tickets on the plaintiff's platform [1]

Core Points - The case involves a lawsuit by a company operating the Dianping platform against a company in Changsha for engaging in "brushing" services, which led to a court ruling of 100,000 yuan in damages for unfair competition [1][5][6] - The court determined that the defendant's actions constituted unfair competition as they aimed to generate false reviews without actual transactions, harming the credibility of the Dianping platform [6][9] Summary by Sections Case Background - A company in Changsha was accused of organizing individuals to provide false five-star reviews for merchants on the Dianping platform without real transactions [2][4] - The plaintiff, the operator of Dianping, sought 531,000 yuan in damages, claiming that the defendant's actions misled consumers and constituted unfair competition [2][6] Court Ruling - The court ruled that the defendant's actions were aimed at profit and constituted unfair competition, leading to a judgment of 100,000 yuan in damages [5][6] - The court emphasized that the integrity of consumer reviews is crucial for the operation of the Dianping platform, and the defendant's actions undermined this integrity [6] Legal Implications - The case highlights the potential for civil liability and, in severe cases, criminal liability for engaging in "brushing" activities, which can be classified as false advertising [7][8] - Legal experts noted that the definition of competition has expanded in the internet economy, allowing for broader interpretations of unfair competition beyond direct industry rivals [9]

淘宝一商家卖刮码产品 原告浙江宁波某化妆品公司是第16599974号商标专用权人，核定使用商品为第3类洗发剂、化妆品 等，后该公司将该商标转让给宁波某生物工程公司法定代表人赵某，该商标尚在注册有效期内。该公司 在生产的商品洗发水上标注标识码用以识别追溯商品来源。 被告某美发商行在淘宝平台开设的网络店铺中销售标有第16599974号商标的洗发产品，某美发商行 自供货商处购进该商品时，将商品条形识别码及数字码统一处理刮去。 "我卖的是正品，这也侵权吗？"庭审中，某美发商行负责人一肚子委屈。 被告某美发商行辩称：案涉洗发商品是从第三人处购买的正品，商品外包装均为原厂生产，保留了 生产厂家和商标品牌名称，并未侵犯原告的商标权，其之所以刮码销售，是为了保护代理商的个人信 息，而且淘宝店铺产品详情介绍页已向消费者提示了是刮码销售，并未给原告和消费者造成任何损失， 也未通过刮码销售获得任何不正当利益。 为了证实自己销售的商品为正品，被告某美发商行提交了自己与第三人温某的微信聊天记录截图以 及付款截图，温某与案涉商品销售代理商王某的微信聊天记录、付款截图，王某与原告经营的公司签订 的产品区域代理合同等证据，证明王某是涉案商品 ...