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 ...

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]