Group 1 - Shenzhen Urban Construction Industry Park Development Co., Ltd. was fined 61,000 yuan for unfair competition practices by the Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration, Luohu Regulatory Bureau [1] - The company failed to fully disclose promotional sales information, which led to the penalty [1] - Shenzhen Urban Construction Industry Park Development Co., Ltd. was established on December 30, 1988, with Shen Wei as the legal representative [4] Group 2 - The sole shareholder of Shenzhen Urban Construction Industry Park Development Co., Ltd. is Shenzhen Urban Construction Development (Group) Co., Ltd. [6]

Core Viewpoint - The "Jin Yong vs Jiang Nan" case, a significant copyright dispute in the publishing and literary creation industry, has reached a comprehensive settlement after nine years of legal proceedings, marking the end of what is known as the "first case of fan works" in China [1][4]. Group 1: Case Background - The case originated from Jiang Nan's early novel "The Youth of This Place," which heavily utilized characters and elements from Jin Yong's classic martial arts novels, leading to allegations of copyright infringement and unfair competition by Jin Yong in July 2016 [2][3]. - The initial ruling by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court recognized the infringement and ordered Jiang Nan to cease the infringing activities, issue a public apology, and pay a total of 1.68 million yuan in damages, along with 200,000 yuan for reasonable expenses to stop the infringement [3]. Group 2: Settlement Details - The parties reached a settlement agreement that included several key points: - They agreed not to classify the actions as "plagiarism" - Jiang Nan acknowledged a lack of knowledge regarding copyright law and the resulting damage to Jin Yong [4] - Jiang Nan committed not to reprint "The Youth of This Place" in its original form and will not use original character names or related content from Jin Yong's works in future editions [4] - The subtitle used in the earlier version of the novel constituted unfair competition [4] - Jiang Nan has fulfilled the compensation amount determined in the previous ruling, and all prior judgments will no longer hold legal effect [4]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The case highlights the complexities surrounding "fan works" and copyright infringement, emphasizing that each situation must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a fan work infringes on the original author's rights [6]. - The court's approach focused on resolving disputes through dialogue rather than strict legal interpretation, aiming to clarify the legal boundaries of fan creations and the standards for recognizing copyright infringement [3][6].

Core Viewpoint - The trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Die Paper and Zulong has concluded with Zulong being ordered to pay 150,000 yuan in damages, highlighting the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the gaming industry [1][6][9]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The dispute originated in January 2024 when Die Paper discovered Zulong using its registered trademarks as search keywords on WeChat, leading to a lawsuit filed in March 2024 [6]. - The Jiangsu Provincial Intermediate People's Court upheld the initial ruling, confirming Zulong's infringement and ordering compensation of 150,000 yuan to Die Paper [6][9]. - Zulong failed to comply with the court's ruling, resulting in a forced execution of the payment [1][6]. Group 2: Company Backgrounds - Die Paper, established in 2013, has successfully dominated the dress-up game sector with its "Nuan Nuan" series and is expanding its IP through various initiatives, including a clothing brand and virtual idols [7]. - Zulong, founded in 1997 and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2020, has faced ongoing financial losses, with cumulative losses exceeding 2.4 billion yuan from 2020 to 2024 [9][10]. - Despite recent revenue growth of 44.4% in the first half of 2025, Zulong reported a net loss of 11.73 million yuan, indicating ongoing challenges in profitability [9][10]. Group 3: Industry Insights - The use of competitors' trademarks for promotional purposes is seen as a risky strategy that can lead to legal repercussions and may not be sustainable in a competitive market [7]. - The gaming industry is witnessing a shift, with companies needing to innovate to keep pace with rapidly evolving consumer preferences and competitive dynamics [10].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of fair competition in the financial market to protect investors' rights and maintain market order, while highlighting various unfair competition practices that threaten investor safety [1]. Unfair Competition Behaviors - **False Advertising**: Misleading promotional activities that deceive investors into making irrational investment decisions due to a lack of understanding [3]. - **Technical Interference**: Utilizing technology to disrupt normal user choices and hinder the operation of legitimate network products or services [4]. - **Confusion Behavior**: Unauthorized use of influential names or similar logos that mislead investors into believing there is a specific connection with the impersonated institution or product [5]. - **Commercial Defamation**: Spreading false or misleading information online to damage the reputation of competitors or their products [6]. Prevention Strategies for Unfair Competition - **Proactive Information Gathering**: Investors should actively seek comprehensive information, monitor company announcements, and be vigilant about unusual trading data to prevent potential fraud [8]. - **Rational Risk Assessment**: Investors are advised to maintain a calm and rational mindset, carefully evaluate the feasibility of investment projects, and avoid blindly pursuing high returns [9]. - **Strict Verification of Institutional Qualifications**: Before engaging in financial activities, investors should verify the legitimacy and compliance of institutions, ensuring they choose qualified and reputable investment channels [10]. - **Legal Protection of Rights**: Investors should keep records of promotional materials and contracts, and seek legal remedies through litigation or arbitration if their rights are infringed [11].

2025.09.16 第一财经持续追踪财经热点。若您掌握公司动态、行业趋势、金融事件等有价值的线索，欢迎提供。专 用邮箱：bianjibu@yicai.com （注：我们会对线索进行核实。您的隐私将严格保密。） 抖音集团副总裁李亮9月15日发文称，过去一段时间，社交媒体平台出现了很多"字节离职员工"的帖 子，基本都是"月薪X万离开字节"这样的标题，再配上字节跳动的LOGO背景墙或者工卡照片。这些帖 子吸引了很多的流量，不知不觉似乎营造了一个社媒上的"字节离职赛道"。做了一些调查后发现，有很 多类似的帖子，实际上作者从未在字节工作，背后是一些培训机构在借大厂名义引流卖课。这当中，部 分机构反复发布此类虚假帖子，无奈之下，公司起诉了其中比较猖獗的一家，最近获得了法院的判决， 认定这些行为属于引人误解的虚假宣传、构成不正当竞争。也提醒广大网友们，注意对网上的信息加强 鉴别，你看到的"大厂离职""大厂内幕"不一定是真的。 微信编辑| 七三 本文字数：436，阅读时长大约1分钟 ...

抖音集团副总裁李亮9月15日发文称，过去一段时间，社交媒体平台出现了很多"字节离职员工"的帖 子，基本都是"月薪X万离开字节"这样的标题，再配上字节跳动的LOGO背景墙或者工卡照片。这些 帖子吸引了很多的流量，不知不觉似乎营造了一个社媒上的"字节离职赛道"。 做了一些调查后发 现，有很多类似的帖子，实际上作者从未在字节工作 ，背后是一些培训机构在借大厂名义引流卖 课。这当中，部分机构反复发布此类虚假帖子，无奈之下，公司起诉了其中比较猖獗的一家，最近获 得了法院的判决，认定这些行为属于引人误解的虚假宣传、构成不正当竞争。也提醒广大网友们，注 意对网上的信息加强鉴别，你看到的"大厂离职""大厂内幕"不一定是真的。 微信编辑 | 七三 第 一 财 经 持 续 追 踪 财 经 热 点 。 若 您 掌 握 公 司 动 态 、 行 业 趋 势 、 金 融 事 件 等 有 价 值 的 线 索 ， 欢 迎 提 供 。 专 用 邮 箱 ： bianjibu@yicai.com 2025.09. 16 （注：我们会对线索进行核实。您的隐私将严格保密。） 本文字数：436，阅读时长大约1分钟 浦发银行 SPDBANK p 推荐阅读 ...

抖音集团副总裁李亮9月15日发文表示，过去一段时间，社交媒体平台出现了很多"字节离职员工"的帖 子，基本都是"月薪X万离开字节"这样的标题，再配上字节跳动的LOGO背景墙或者工卡照片。这些帖 子吸引了很多的流量，不知不觉似乎营造了一个社媒上的"字节离职赛道"。做了一些调查后发现，有很 多类似的帖子，实际上作者从未在字节工作，背后是一些培训机构在借大厂名义引流卖课。这当中，部 分机构反复发布此类虚假帖子，无奈之下，公司起诉了其中比较猖獗的一家，最近获得了法院的判决， 认定这些行为属于引人误解的虚假宣传、构成不正当竞争。也提醒广大网友们，注意对网上的信息加强 鉴别，你看到的"大厂离职""大厂内幕"不一定是真的。 责任编辑：李思阳 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Vice President of Douyin, Li Liang, addressed the rise of posts on social media claiming to be from "ByteDance employees" who left for high salaries, stating that these are often fabricated by training institutions to attract customers for their courses. Legal action has been taken against one particularly rampant entity, resulting in a court ruling against their misleading practices [1][6][7]. Group 1 - Numerous posts on social media falsely claim to be from former ByteDance employees, often featuring titles like "Left ByteDance for a monthly salary of X" [1]. - Investigations revealed that many authors of these posts had never worked at ByteDance, and the posts were part of a strategy by training institutions to leverage the company's name for marketing [1][4]. - A court ruling determined that the actions of the accused training institution constituted misleading advertising and unfair competition, leading to a requirement for them to issue a public statement and pay damages of 50,000 yuan [6][7]. Group 2 - The case involved Douyin Shijie Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff, with the court recognizing "ByteDance" as a legally protected name due to its significant influence [6]. - The defendant, a certain education technology company, was found to have engaged in unfair competition by using deceptive practices to promote their training courses, including falsely claiming to be former employees of ByteDance [6][7]. - The defendant's actions included creating misleading posts on platforms like Xiaohongshu to attract users to their paid Python training course priced at 7,880 yuan [7].

微信编辑：夏木 9月15日，据长沙开福法院判决，被告长沙某教育科技有限公司指使员工在小红书平台假冒"字节离 职员工"发笔记，以"月薪四万离开字节"套路引流兜售7880元Python课，构成不正当竞争，判赔抖音 五万元并登报道歉。抖音副总裁李亮表示，社交媒体出现大量"大厂员工离职"贴文，实际作者从未在 字节工作过，背后是一些培训机构在借大厂名义引流卖课，提醒网友对信息加强鉴别，"大厂离 职""大厂内幕"不一定是真的。 ...

抖音起诉！虚假"离职员工"引流卖课被判罚五万 9月15日，据长沙开福法院判决，被告长沙某教育科技有限公司指使员工在小红书平台假冒"字节离职员 工"发笔记，以"月薪四万离开字节"套路引流兜售7880元Python课，构成不正当竞争，判赔抖音五万元 并登报道歉。抖音副总裁李亮表示，社交媒体出现大量"大厂员工离职"贴文，实际作者从未在字节工作 过，背后是一些培训机构在借大厂名义引流卖课，提醒网友对信息加强鉴别，"大厂离职""大厂内幕"不 一定是真的。 ...