近日，记者从信用中国官网获悉，杭州纯真宠物科技集团有限公司因编造、传播虚假信息或者误导性信息，损害竞争对手的商业信誉、商品声誉案，被杭州 市萧山区市场监督管理局罚款10万元。 | 处罚决定日期 | 2025-06-13 | | --- | --- | | 处罚内容 | 当事人通过第三方向平台发起恶意投诉,应认定为诋毁其他经 法》第十一条的规定,属于违法行为。本案中,签于当事人案发 政处罚法》第六条、《长三角地区市场监管领域轻微违法行 华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二十三条、第二十五条的 | | 元款金额(厅元) | 10.0 | | 没收违法所得、没收非法财 | 0.0 | | 物的金额(万元) | | | 暂扣或吊销证照名称及编号 | | | 违法行为类型 | 杭州纯真宠物科技集团有限公司编造、传播虚假信息或者误 | | 道法事实 | 主要违法事实:当事人主要从事动物食品(饲料)开发、经营,拥 项目:第31类:动物食品、饲料、宠物食品 )。 2021年6月3 务合同(协议),由第三方在淘宝平台对销售当事人动物食品(饲 用当事人注册账号向淘宝平台发起商品商标侵权投诉(投诉成 利用PS、商品标签追溯码不全等(实 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of tea products being sold in packaging that closely resembles well-known cigarette brands, particularly "中华" (Zhonghua), which raises concerns about consumer deception and potential legal violations related to trademark infringement and misleading advertising [8][20][21]. Group 1: Product Description and Consumer Experience - The tea products are packaged in boxes that mimic the appearance of cigarette brands like "中华," "荷花," and "南京," with prices around 10 yuan or 9.9 yuan per package [4][6][19]. - Consumers have reported confusion and disappointment upon receiving the products, as they expected cigarettes but received tea instead, leading to negative reviews and claims of being misled [4][10][15]. - The tea quality has been criticized, with industry experts stating that the products do not meet the standards of the advertised types, such as "肉桂" (Rougui) and "大红袍" (Da Hong Pao) [22][24]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - Selling cigarettes online is illegal under Chinese law, and the use of similar packaging for tea products may constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition [8][20][21]. - The packaging of the tea products is argued to infringe on the trademark rights of "中华" cigarettes, as the design and branding are closely associated with the well-known cigarette brand [20][21]. - Legal experts suggest that the tea products' packaging could mislead consumers and harm the reputation of the "中华" brand, potentially leading to legal action [20][21]. Group 3: Market Implications - The article indicates a growing trend of using deceptive marketing practices in the tea industry, where low-quality products are sold at low prices, often misleading consumers [22][24]. - The presence of such products in the market raises concerns about consumer protection and the integrity of e-commerce platforms, as they may facilitate the sale of counterfeit or substandard goods [22][24]. - The situation reflects broader issues within the tea industry regarding quality control and the need for better regulation to protect consumers from misleading practices [22][24].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing disputes in the beauty industry reflect marketing strategies and tactics, with conflicts becoming a means to generate traffic, ultimately harming consumers who struggle to discern product authenticity [1][4]. Group 1: Dispute Overview - The conflict began when Aierfu criticized Zhenmeiya for allegedly misleading claims regarding the development of artificial skin technology, which Aierfu claims infringes on its patented technology [2][4]. - Zhenmeiya responded by asserting that it developed its own technology unrelated to Aierfu's patents, claiming that Aierfu's patent had expired and thus entered the public domain [3][9]. Group 2: Patent and Technology Details - Aierfu holds a patent for "tissue-engineered skin," which was reported to have expired in October 2021, while Zhenmeiya claims its technology is based on a different patent for a 3D epidermal model used in skincare product testing [7][9]. - The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of patent rights and the distinction between patent inventors and patent holders, with both companies asserting their respective claims [7][12]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The frequent conflicts in the beauty industry indicate a lack of transparency and standards, leading to confusion among consumers regarding product claims and authenticity [21][22]. - Experts suggest that the industry needs to establish clearer standards and verification mechanisms to help consumers make informed decisions about beauty products [22].

大量账号在618大促期间集中发布同质化内容，援引不明真伪的商家后台截图称抖音退货率超过 90%、商家无法经营、号召或者直接断言商家都在向某传统电商平台转移； 发帖账号很多是没有认证信息的低粉丝量账号，历史发文很少，IP归属地相对集中； 很多截图中显示的退款率数字与帖子中的"90%"明显不符，时间也不一致，甚至有发帖人在评论 区中直接承认自己是为了广告费而捏造身份发布不实信息——"赚个广子费而已，不要这么认真， 我没有开抖店，也不做服装"。 智慧板报 25-6-10 14:57 发布于 北京 来自 微博网页版 10日下午，抖音黑板报官微发布《关于批量"水军"账号在社交媒体集中攻击抖音电商的情况说明》。 说明称， 近日，抖音电商关注到618大促期间，社交媒体上出现了大批同质化内容，冒充商家身份诋毁 抖音电商，相关账号及行为存在明显异常，具有典型的"水军"特征。 异常行为主要表现为： 说明表示，目前， 已对上述不正当竞争行为完成证据保全工作，后续将通过法律途径维权 。 近日,抖音电商关注到618大促期间,社交媒体上出现了大批同质化内容,冒充商 家身份诋毁抖音电商。相关账号及行为存在明显异常，具有典型的"水军"特征。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The "MIXUE" brand has successfully won a trademark infringement case against "MINIANXUE," resulting in a compensation of 800,000 yuan for economic losses and 140,000 yuan for reasonable expenses [2][8]. Group 1: Case Background - The case involves a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit filed by MIXUE against Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE, which registered the "MINIANXUE" trademark and allowed others to use it for selling beverages [3][5]. - MIXUE claims that the actions of Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE and its franchise stores constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking to stop the infringement and eliminate its impact through public announcement [3][7]. Group 2: Court's Findings - The court determined that "MIXUE" and "MINIANXUE" are similar enough to cause confusion among the public, especially given the use of similar colors in store signage and decor [5][6]. - The court noted that the public could easily misinterpret the relationship between the two brands due to the high degree of similarity in the main identifying parts of the trademarks [6][7]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Outcomes - The first-instance court ruled in favor of MIXUE, ordering Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE to cease its infringing activities and pay compensation totaling 940,000 yuan [8]. - Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE appealed the decision, but the higher court upheld the original ruling, confirming the findings of trademark infringement and unfair competition [8][9]. Group 4: Previous Disputes - This is not the first legal dispute between MIXUE and Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE; in 2023, Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE had previously filed an administrative lawsuit regarding the invalidation of its trademark, which was ruled against by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing controversy surrounding the collagen product from Juzhibio's brand Kefu Mei highlights a significant conflict between two major players in the medical beauty industry, Juzhibio and Huaxi Biological, which may represent a deeper technical rivalry between recombinant collagen and hyaluronic acid [1][2]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - Juzhibio confirmed that its Kefu Mei Human-like recombinant collagen essence contains more than 0.1% recombinant collagen, countering claims made by beauty blogger "Big Mouth Doctor" that the actual content was only 0.0177% [1]. - Following the allegations, Huaxi Biological publicly supported the claims made by the beauty blogger, escalating the conflict between the two companies [1]. - The dispute has led to a series of emotional exchanges between the companies, with accusations of malicious competition and misinformation being exchanged [2]. Group 2: Consumer Concerns and Industry Implications - Consumers are primarily concerned about the quality and compliance of the medical beauty products rather than the corporate disputes, indicating a need for clarity and assurance regarding product safety [2]. - The controversy has overshadowed scientific standards, with conflicting reports and a lack of consensus on the testing methods used, leading to confusion among consumers [2][3]. - The ongoing conflict reflects deeper issues within the medical beauty industry, such as unclear product standards and marketing boundaries, which have allowed for such disputes to arise [3]. Group 3: Regulatory and Industry Response - The situation calls for neutral arbitration from regulatory bodies to investigate the claims and provide credible testing reports to resolve the dispute and restore consumer trust [2]. - The market regulatory authorities have issued guidelines to strengthen oversight of the medical beauty industry, aiming to address long-standing issues such as false advertising and lack of transparency [3]. - This public incident could serve as an opportunity for the industry to establish clearer standards and regulations, ultimately benefiting both the sector and consumers [3].

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 ...

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]