1993年起，来自新加坡的仁某置地集团在中国上海、南京、成都等地落子，陆续成立三家公司，凭 借"仁某滨江园""仁某广场"等高端项目迅速打响品牌。 远在西北地区，另一家"仁某公司"悄然成立。2004年起，一批高档住宅楼陆续落地甘肃省兰州 市，"国际""晶城"等楼盘名称前，均冠有"仁某"字样。但喜提新房的业主们浑然不觉，自己的舒适港湾 正陷入一场商标侵权和不正当竞争风波。 此"仁某" 非彼"仁某" 2015年，花旗银行、德意志银行致函仁某置地（成都）有限公司，提出参观访问其在兰州的"仁某 美林郡"项目。 从未在兰州布局，何来楼盘项目？"乌龙"事件让一家名为"兰州仁某房地产有限公司"的企业，进入 成都仁某公司的视野。后经调查发现，这家兰州的"仁某公司"，早已在当地开发了"仁某国际""仁某美 林郡""仁某晶城"等楼盘，2002年至2016年累计获利超4亿元。 2016年3月，成都仁某公司申请注册成立"兰州仁某置地有限公司"，但因兰州仁某公司的企业名称 注册行为，市场监督管理部门以"字号重名"为由未予核准。成都仁某公司未能顺利在兰州地区设立关联 公司、拓展"仁某"品牌的市场空间。 2016年5月，成都仁某公司以及上海仁 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company "胖东来" has initiated legal action against a social media influencer for defamation related to claims about a product quality issue, specifically concerning red underwear that allegedly caused allergic reactions. The company is seeking damages of no less than 1 million yuan [1][3][8]. Group 1: Legal Actions - The lawsuit against the influencer, known as "两个小段," is based on claims that the influencer's video on Douyin (TikTok) led to significant negative publicity and customer complaints for the company [1][3]. - The company has reported a total of 7 ongoing lawsuits and 9 additional cases it plans to pursue, indicating a broader strategy to protect its brand reputation [2][3]. - The company is pursuing damages of at least 1 million yuan for the defamation case, reflecting the seriousness with which it views the impact of the influencer's statements [1][8]. Group 2: Company Response and Investigation - Following the initial claims, the company established a special investigation team and temporarily removed the affected product from shelves, demonstrating a proactive approach to customer concerns [6]. - A detailed investigation report was released, confirming that the product in question met quality standards, but the company acknowledged failures in handling customer complaints and has taken disciplinary actions against staff involved [6][7]. - The company has committed to compensating affected customers and has implemented measures to improve its complaint handling processes [6][8]. Group 3: Public and Media Reaction - The incident has sparked significant public interest and debate, with the founder of the company emphasizing the need for rational discourse and accountability in public statements [11]. - The influencer involved has since issued a statement denying malicious intent and expressing regret for the emotional nature of their comments, indicating a recognition of the incident's broader implications [13][14]. - The situation has led to a ripple effect, with other retailers reportedly removing the brand's products from their shelves, further complicating the company's market position [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the advertising practices of "Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" in the "Three Kingdoms Strategy Edition Bar" constituted unfair competition, leading to a joint liability for compensation of 1 million yuan by Bilibili and Baidu [11][13]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The operator of "Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" filed a lawsuit against the advertising practices of "Three Kingdoms: Planning the World," claiming that the ads caused consumer confusion and constituted unfair competition [4][6]. - The court found that the advertising methods used were likely to mislead the public into believing that the two games had a cooperative relationship, thus causing market confusion [11][12]. - The court ordered Bilibili and Baidu to jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1 million yuan, along with a seven-day public statement in the "Three Kingdoms Strategy Edition Bar" to mitigate the impact of the unfair competition [13]. Group 2: Advertising Practices - The plaintiff argued that the ads were prominently displayed in various locations on the "Three Kingdoms Strategy Edition Bar," leading to direct competition and consumer confusion [4][6]. - The defendant claimed that the advertising was a normal business practice in a public space and that the plaintiff had no legal rights over the advertising space [8][9]. - The court acknowledged that while advertising in competitive spaces is permissible, the specific practices in this case led to significant consumer confusion, violating the Anti-Unfair Competition Law [12]. Group 3: Company Responses - The operator of "Three Kingdoms: Planning the World" announced plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that the court's recognition of confusion was unfounded [3]. - The defendants maintained that the advertising was clearly marked and did not infringe on the plaintiff's rights, arguing that users could distinguish between the two games [9][10]. - Baidu defended its role as an advertising platform, stating that it had fulfilled its obligations in terms of content review and should not bear legal responsibility [10].

Core Viewpoint - The rapid increase in internet-related civil and commercial disputes, particularly in areas like live streaming sales and paid content, poses challenges in balancing user rights protection and platform development [1] Group 1: Trends in Internet Disputes - The number of internet-related civil and commercial disputes has significantly increased, with cases rising from over 200 in 2022 to around 700 in the following year [3] - Common types of disputes include information network sales contract disputes, product liability disputes, and network service contract disputes, often arising from issues like fraud, product quality, and service cancellations [3] Group 2: Responsibilities of Platforms - Platforms are expected to actively assume both platform and social responsibilities, ensuring consumer protection through rigorous vetting of merchants and maintaining adequate compensation funds for high-risk products [4] - The courts aim to balance user rights and platform development by correctly applying laws such as the Civil Code and the E-commerce Law, while considering the unique characteristics of the digital platform industry [4] Group 3: Live Streaming Sales Disputes - The number of consumer disputes related to live streaming sales is on the rise, with a diverse range of products involved, reflecting an increasing consumer demand in this sector [7] - In live streaming sales, merchants have a heightened duty of care, and platforms must adhere to a fault liability principle to determine responsibility [8] Group 4: Regulation of Digital Platforms - Courts can regulate digital platform operations by properly adjudicating cases related to new transaction models, combating infringement, and providing judicial guidance through typical case publications [11] - The judiciary aims to establish clear rules for new types of disputes arising from digital platforms, such as data ownership and algorithm regulation [11] Group 5: Competition and Legal Framework - "Involution" competition can lead to resource waste and a focus on short-term results over long-term innovation, necessitating judicial oversight to ensure fair competition [12] - Courts should apply laws like the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to maintain fairness in competitive practices [12]