本报讯（记者 王英鸽 通讯员 唐若愚 朱正华）浏览微信公众号是人们日常获取信息的重要方式。在 微信公众号精美的版式与交互设计背后，隐藏着一个由代码构建的"隐形世界"。日前，上海市金山区人 民法院审理了一起涉源代码公共空间的商业诋毁案，判决被告A公司行为构成商业诋毁，需赔偿原告B 公司经济损失等共计11万元。 SVG编辑器，是制作微信公众号文章互动效果的常用工具。A公司和B公司均为SVG编辑器行业的 知名企业。某日，A公司发现，在与B公司合作的各大微信公众号的文章的源代码公共空间内，出现 了"A公司编辑器你抄够了没""A公司又来抄袭啦"等评论。于是，A公司以B公司存在商业诋毁为由，将 其诉至法院。 体中形成传播，将影响与该经营主体正在合作或可能产生合作的客户选择，从而导致该经营主体丧失大 量潜在交易机会，也极易给公众或相关消费者带来误解，从而实质性地损害竞争对手的商誉，构成商业 诋毁。 B公司辩称，其在源代码公共空间内发布的评论基于一定事实，两家公司运营的SVG编辑器交互效 果在视觉上相同或相似，其评论为"抄袭"并无明显不当。其未对评论进行"传播"，一般公众不可能查看 微信公众号文章的源代码公共空间，且每篇文章 ...

智通财经记者 陈绪厚 自今年8月起，家的公司多位销售人员在社交平台发布视频，对"10户中国家庭，7户用公牛"的宣传语质 疑误导，认为该宣传语属于"大字吹牛，小字免责"的"误导性宣传"。 此前，广东中山市家的电器有限公司（以下简称"家的公司"）多个销售人员在社交平台发布视频，称公 牛集团的"10户中国家庭，7户用公牛"宣传语是"大字吹牛、小字免责"，存在误导性宣传。之后，公牛 集团已起诉家的公司，提出索赔420万元。该事件被曝光后，引起外界广泛讨论。 针对该事件，近日，公牛集团回复智通财经称，公牛一向主张公平竞争，尊重基于事实的业务讨论。但 近期，家的公司20余名销售人员通过个人自媒体账号，有组织地发布了针对公牛的视频200余条。公牛 方面于11月下旬发函交涉后，对方虽删除部分言论，但侵权行为并未停止。鉴于相关内容涉嫌误导公众 并损害公牛商誉，公牛选择通过法律途径维护行业秩序与品牌权益。目前公牛已完成相关取证手续，案 件由法院正式受理。公牛尊重司法流程，现阶段不便透露更多细节，相信法院会给出公正裁决。 针对上述宣传语所引起的争议，公牛集团在回复中表示，公牛始终恪守《中华人民共和国广告 法》。"10户中国家庭，7 ...

Core Viewpoint - The lawsuit between Bull Group and Jia's Electric highlights the intensifying competition and market challenges in the domestic electrical appliance industry, particularly in the socket sector, where both companies operate in a highly overlapping market [2][3]. Group 1: Legal Dispute - Bull Group has filed a lawsuit against Jia's Electric, claiming damages of 4.2 million yuan due to alleged commercial defamation related to the advertising slogan "7 out of 10 Chinese families use Bull" [2]. - Jia's Electric responded by asserting that their videos questioning Bull Group's advertising were part of normal market observation and aimed at providing consumers with comprehensive information [2]. - The dispute centers around the interpretation of Bull Group's advertising claim, which states that over 70% of Chinese households are currently or have previously used Bull products [2]. Group 2: Financial Performance - For the first three quarters of 2025, Bull Group reported a revenue of 12.198 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 3.22%, and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 2.979 billion yuan, down 8.72% [3]. - The decline in financial performance reflects the increasing pressure Bull Group faces in the mid-to-low-end market segment due to intensified competition from brands like Chint, Delixi, and Opple [3]. Group 3: Market Context - The lawsuit and its timing are indicative of the growing homogenization and competitive pressures within the domestic electrical lighting market [3]. - Jia's Electric, established in 2007, competes directly with Bull Group in the socket and switch product categories, further intensifying the competitive landscape [3].

插线板行业龙头公牛集团（603195），因一句常年沿用的广告语与同行对簿公堂，直指对方商业诋毁并索赔420万元，这场企业纠纷火速掀动行业讨论。 争议导火索源于同行中山市家的电器有限公司（以下简称家的公司）销售人员，在社交平台发布视频公开吐槽公牛，矛头对准其"10 户中国家庭，7 户用 公牛"的广告语，直言该宣传"大字吹牛、小字免责"，涉嫌误导消费者，相关内容一经发布便快速引发公众关注与热议。 矛盾在11月20 日正式升级，公牛集团针对上述发声向家的公司出具律师函，明确认定销售人员行为属企业职务行为，视频内容构成商业诋毁，已造成自 身品牌社会评价下滑，要求对方立即下架相关内容、公开致歉并协商赔偿事宜。 面对龙头企业的追责，家的公司态度强硬，回函明确拒绝相关诉求，称其发声是基于市场现状的合规性监督，内容依托客观事实展开，属于正常行业观察 范畴，目的是为消费者厘清信息偏差、倒逼行业宣传标准化。 双方协商陷入僵局，最终公牛集团以商业诋毁为由提起诉讼。 而这场围绕广告语的攻防战，不仅关乎两家企业的声誉与利益，更将为行业广告宣传的 "尺度"与"边界"，写下极具参考意义的注脚。 01 同行吐槽 公牛"大字吹牛、小字免责" ...

来源|凤凰网财经《公司研究院》 争议导火索源于同行中山市家的电器有限公司（以下简称家的公司）销售人员，在社交平台发布视频公开吐槽公牛，矛头对准其"10 户中国家庭，7 户用公牛"的广告语，直言该宣传"大字吹牛、小字免责"，涉嫌误导消费者，相关内容一经发布便快速引发公众关注与热议。 矛盾在11月20 日正式升级，公牛集团针对上述发声向家的公司出具律师函，明确认定销售人员行为属企业职务行为，视频内容构成商业诋毁，已造 成自身品牌社会评价下滑，要求对方立即下架相关内容、公开致歉并协商赔偿事宜。 插线板行业龙头公牛集团，因一句常年沿用的广告语与同行对簿公堂，直指对方商业诋毁并索赔420万元，这场企业纠纷火速掀动行业讨论。 面对龙头企业的追责，家的公司态度强硬，回函明确拒绝相关诉求，称其发声是基于市场现状的合规性监督，内容依托客观事实展开，属于正常行业 观察范畴，目的是为消费者厘清信息偏差、倒逼行业宣传标准化。 双方协商陷入僵局，最终公牛集团以商业诋毁为由提起诉讼。 而这场围绕广告语的攻防战，不仅关乎两家企业的声誉与利益，更将为行业广告宣传的 "尺度"与"边界"，写下极具参考意义的注脚。 01 同行吐槽 公牛"大字吹牛 ...

2025.12.17 本文字数：1293，阅读时长大约2分钟 "10户中国家庭，7户用公牛"，是公牛集团长期使用的宣传语。 此前，广东中山市家的电器有限公司多个销售人员在社交平台发布视频，称该宣传语是"大字吹牛、小字免责"，存在误导性宣传，引起外界关注。 图源｜网络截图 家的公司还称，同意通过司法途径妥善解决本次争议，并希望借助此次争议的解决，推动行业内广告宣传合规化。 据羊城晚报，12月15日，针对该事件，公牛集团邮件曾回复称，公司将合法合规作为企业经营的核心准则与底线，在广告宣传、市场竞争等所有经营活动 中，严格恪守国家法律法规及行业规范，自觉维护公平有序的市场环境。 公牛集团还表示与中山家的相关法律纠纷，公司已就其侵权行为向法院提起诉讼，目前该案件正处于法院审理阶段，暂无更多信息可以透露。 12月16日，家的公司证实，目前，公牛集团已起诉家的公司，索赔金额达420万元。 爱企查App显示，公牛集团股份有限公司成立于2008年1月，法定代表人为阮立平，注册资本约18.09亿元人民币，经营范围包括机械电气设备制造、配电 开关控制设备制造、五金产品制造、电工器材制造等，由宁波良机实业有限公司、阮立平、阮学平等 ...

本文字数：1293，阅读时长大约2分钟 "10户中国家庭，7户用公牛"，是公牛集团长期使用的宣传语。 此前， 广东中山市家的电器有限公司多个销售人员在社交平台发布视频， 称该宣传语是"大字吹 牛、小字免责"，存在误导性宣传，引起外界关注。 2025.12. 17 爱企查App显示，公牛集团股份有限公司成立于2008年1月，法定代表人为阮立平，注册资本约 18.09亿元人民币，经营范围包括机械电气设备制造、配电开关控制设备制造、五金产品制造、电工 器材制造等，由宁波良机实业有限公司、阮立平、阮学平等共同持股。 微信编辑 | 雨林 图源｜网络截图 爱企查App显示，中山市家的电器有限公司成立于2007年3月，法定代表人为胡文章，注册资本 3000万元人民币，经营范围包括生产、销售：照明灯及其配件、电器开关、插座、家用电器等，由 匡建、胡文章、中山市家和项目投资合伙企业（有限合伙）共同持股。 据澎湃新闻，11月20日，公牛集团向家的公司发《律师函》，称家的公司销售人员发布视频行为是 职务行为，相关视频内容片面地将公牛集团与家的公司产品进行非对称性对比，贬低公牛集团的产 品，并声称公牛集团使用的"10户中国家庭7户用 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court has ruled that the internet celebrity "Chai Dui Dui" has committed infringement against the company Pang Dong Lai and its founder Yu Dong Lai, requiring immediate cessation of infringing activities and compensation for damages [1][7]. Group 1: Infringement Details - The infringing party, Chai Dui Dui, has been publishing defamatory content about Pang Dong Lai and Yu Dong Lai since March 2023, including false claims about the cost and profit margins of their jade products [1][7]. - The court has mandated that Chai Dui Dui and associated companies must delete the infringing videos and issue a public apology within ten days [7][8]. - The total compensation ordered by the court amounts to 2 million yuan for Pang Dong Lai, 400,000 yuan for Yu Dong Lai, and 200,000 yuan for reasonable expenses, totaling 2.6 million yuan [7][8]. Group 2: Background and Context - In April 2023, Yu Dong Lai publicly denied allegations made by Chai Dui Dui regarding profit margins from low-cost jade, stating that if such defamatory actions were not penalized, he would consider leaving the business [8]. - The market regulatory authority conducted an investigation revealing that Pang Dong Lai sold 4,177 pieces of jade with a total sales amount of approximately 29.59 million yuan and an average gross margin not exceeding 20% from January to April 2025 [8]. - Chai Dui Dui and his wife have faced multiple consumer complaints regarding the sale of counterfeit products, leading to their criminal detention in September 2023 [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal actions taken against the influencer "Chai Dui Dui" for defamation and selling counterfeit products, highlighting the consequences of malicious marketing tactics in the digital space [2][5][19]. Group 1: Legal Actions and Outcomes - The court ruled that the four defendants must immediately cease their infringing activities and delete the videos related to the "Chai Dui Dui" account [2][4]. - Chai Dui Dui is required to post a court-approved apology on his account within ten days [2][4]. - The defendants are ordered to collectively compensate the affected parties a total of 2.6 million yuan, which includes 2 million yuan to the company "Pang Dong Lai," 400,000 yuan to Mr. Yu Dong Lai, and 200,000 yuan for reasonable expenses [2][4]. - One of the defendants, Wen XX, is held jointly liable for 520,000 yuan of the compensation [2][4]. Group 2: Background of the Case - Chai Dui Dui, a self-proclaimed "anti-fraud blogger," gained attention by making unfounded claims about the pricing and quality of jade products sold by the well-known supermarket "Pang Dong Lai" [5][9]. - His actions included spreading false information about the company's products, alleging that they were sold at exorbitant prices compared to their actual cost [5][9]. - Following these claims, the local market regulatory authority conducted inspections and confirmed that "Pang Dong Lai" had transparent pricing with a gross profit margin of less than 20% [9]. Group 3: Consequences of Malicious Marketing - The actions of Chai Dui Dui have been criticized for damaging public trust in legitimate businesses and disrupting normal market competition [19]. - His marketing tactics, which included selling counterfeit jade products while claiming to expose fraud, have led to legal repercussions and public backlash [22]. - The article emphasizes the negative impact of such influencers on the business environment and consumer trust [19][22].

Core Viewpoint - The legal dispute between Zongheng Co., Ltd. and Yuandu Technology has concluded, with the court ruling in favor of Zongheng, determining that Yuandu's statements constituted commercial defamation [1][2][5]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The lawsuit originated from a statement made by Yuandu Technology in May 2024, accusing Zongheng's subsidiary of forgery and improper conduct in a bidding process [3][4]. - The court found that Yuandu failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims, particularly regarding the authenticity of a QQ account screenshot used as evidence [4][5]. - The court ruled that Yuandu's statements misled the public about Zongheng's relationship with local government and falsely accused Zongheng of misconduct, leading to a judgment of commercial defamation [5][6]. Group 2: Financial Implications - As a result of the ruling, Yuandu is required to publish a statement to mitigate the impact of its defamatory claims and compensate Zongheng and its subsidiary for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 320,000 yuan [5][6]. - Zongheng announced that the lawsuit's outcome would not negatively affect its daily operations or financial performance [6].