跨境支付圈近两日一则消息引发关注，两家支付公司竟"打起来"了。近日，国内跨境支付公司杭州乒乓智能技术有限公司（以下简称"PingPong"）以"商业 诋毁纠纷"为由，将上海夺境网络技术有限公司（以下简称"夺境"）、上海夺汇网络技术有限公司（以下简称"夺汇"）诉至杭州市滨江区人民法院。 一场官司引发市场对两方公司的热议，从业务来看，二者存在不少重合度。专家分析，此次行业头部企业对簿公堂，不仅关乎涉事双方的商业信誉与市场份 额，更折射出跨境支付行业竞争进入深水区后，服务同质化、合规成本高企等痛点。业内认为，跨境支付竞争边界亟待规范。 对簿公堂 近日，杭州市滨江区人民法院一则开庭公告显示，PingPong以"商业诋毁纠纷"为由，将夺境、夺汇两家公司诉至法院，案件定于9月19日正式开庭审理。 | 温泉 | 温庭 | 开庭日期 | 排期日期 | 案号 | 案由 | 承办部门 | 审判长/主审人 | 公诉人/原告/上 诉人/申请人 | 被告/被告人 人/被申请人 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 杭州市滨 江区人民 | | ...

（文/霍东阳 编辑/张广凯） 曾发布视频质疑胖东来，称其涉嫌"低成本玉石高价销售牟取暴利"而被胖东来告上法庭的网红"柴怼怼"，近日再起风波。 9月10日，据大象新闻报道，柴怼怼（本名柴向前）等人于9月8日被温州市平阳县公安局警方带走调查，案由系涉嫌生产、销售伪劣产品罪。 今年4月，"柴怼怼"发布视频称，胖东来所售玉石"成本仅几百元，售价却高达几千甚至数万元"，并称"胖东来三万元的玉石品质不如其他商家三千元的产 品"，公开贬低胖东来的商品质量，同时宣传自家玉石产品更具性价比。 不过，平阳县市监局相关工作人员曾向媒体透露，今年4月，该局接到了大批关于该祛湿茶的投诉，经过走访调查，发现商家在销售时存在夸大宣传等情 况，目前已按照虚假宣传立案查处，"对于已经销售且未使用的祛湿茶，要求商家对消费者作退货处理。" 7月，柴向前妻子肖某为法人的公司平阳县小丫茶饮因虚假宣传、销售无标签产品等被罚款22万元。 4月25日，胖东来以"商业诋毁"和"名誉权侵权"为由，对柴怼怼正式提起诉讼，向其索赔不低于500万元。胖东来还公布了今年一季度的销售数据，回应称和 田玉在1月至3月期间的销售额为2190万元，毛利率为20%，仅占珠宝部销 ...

Group 1 - The influencer "Chai Dui Dui" (real name Chai Xiangqian) and associates are under investigation by the Pingyang County Public Security Bureau for allegedly producing and selling counterfeit products [1] - Multiple consumers have reported issues, leading to the police investigation, confirming the situation [1] - A consumer named Ms. Zhang is involved in two civil lawsuits against companies associated with "Chai Dui Dui," with hearings scheduled for September 11 [2] Group 2 - Ms. Zhang claims to have spent 3,596 yuan on "Qi Shi Tea" based on false health claims, leading to health complications and hospitalization [2] - She also alleges that after paying 8,000 yuan to join a wine sales program, she faced issues with refunds and product delivery [2] - Ms. Zhang is seeking triple compensation and 3,000 yuan for emotional distress in her lawsuits [3] Group 3 - The Pingyang County Market Supervision Administration previously fined the company associated with "Chai Dui Dui" 220,000 yuan for false advertising and selling unlabelled products [3] - The company has faced multiple legal challenges, including a defamation lawsuit from a competitor, "Pang Dong Lai," for disparaging remarks made by "Chai Dui Dui" [3][5] - The company has been penalized for advertising containing false content, resulting in fines totaling 6,000 yuan [7]

Core Viewpoint - Usmile, a well-known oral care brand, has been fined 250,000 yuan for commercial defamation against Laifen, a competitor, due to misleading information disseminated through social media [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Details - Usmile's parent company, Guangzhou Xingji Yuedong Co., Ltd., was penalized by the Tianhe District Market Supervision Administration of Guangzhou for spreading misleading information about Laifen's electric toothbrushes [2][3]. - The misleading content included claims that Laifen's toothbrush heads were "all barbs" and "you dare to use this?" during a live broadcast on Douyin [2][3]. - The regulatory body determined that Usmile's actions violated Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, which prohibits the fabrication and dissemination of false or misleading information that harms a competitor's commercial reputation [2][3]. Group 2: Company Background - Usmile was established in 2016, initially focusing on electric toothbrushes, and has since expanded its product line to include oral irrigators, toothpaste, and brush head accessories [4][6]. - Laifen Technology, founded in 2019, entered the electric toothbrush market in October 2023, having previously focused on hair dryers and shavers [6]. - Laifen reported revenues of 1.3 billion yuan in 2021 and 1.567 billion yuan in 2022, but is projected to incur a net loss of 80 million yuan for its toothbrush product line in 2024 [6].

Core Viewpoint - Usmile, a well-known oral care brand, has been fined 250,000 yuan for spreading misleading information that disparaged its competitor, Laifen Technology, in violation of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law [1][2][3]. Company Overview - Usmile was founded in 2016 and initially focused on electric toothbrushes, later expanding its product line to include water flossers, toothpaste, and brush heads [4]. - Laifen Technology, established in 2019, initially developed hair dryers and only entered the electric toothbrush market in October 2023. The company also offers shavers and other products [6]. Financial Performance - Laifen Technology reported revenues of 130 million yuan in 2021 and 1.567 billion yuan in 2022. However, it is projected to incur a net loss of 80 million yuan for its toothbrush product line in 2024 [6]. - Usmile electric toothbrushes are priced between 399 and 798 yuan, while Laifen's electric toothbrushes range from 377 to 768 yuan [6]. Regulatory Action - The Guangzhou Tianhe District Market Supervision Administration determined that Usmile's actions constituted commercial defamation, leading to a fine of 250,000 yuan on July 28 [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal battle between Tianqi Materials and Yongtai Technology revolves around allegations of trade secret infringement and defamation, with both companies filing lawsuits against each other, leading to a total claim amount of 944 million yuan [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Actions - Tianqi Materials has filed a civil lawsuit against Yongtai Technology and 12 related parties for trade secret infringement, with the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court accepting the case [1][2]. - Yongtai Technology has countered by suing Tianqi Materials for defamation, seeking compensation of 57.5193 million yuan, with the courts also accepting this case [1][4]. Group 2: Allegations and Claims - Tianqi Materials accuses Yongtai Technology of illegally obtaining its lithium hexafluorophosphate production technology through a former employee, who allegedly violated confidentiality agreements [2][3]. - Yongtai Technology claims that its production processes and technologies are independently developed and that Tianqi Materials is engaging in malicious litigation to undermine its reputation and market position [5][6]. Group 3: Industry Context - Both companies operate in the competitive electrolyte materials sector, producing lithium hexafluorophosphate, which is critical for battery production [4][5]. - The legal disputes are occurring against a backdrop of intense competition in the new energy automotive market, which has seen significant fluctuations [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling against Hisense Group's subsidiary, Juhua Technology, emphasizes the importance of ethical marketing practices and warns against commercial defamation, highlighting that damaging competitors' reputations is counterproductive [1][2]. Group 1: Legal and Ethical Implications - The court found that the statements made by the "Vidda official Weibo" account in November 2021 constituted commercial defamation, which is defined as actions that harm another's reputation and infringe on their rights [1]. - The ruling serves as a reminder that seemingly harmless marketing tactics, such as wordplay or puns, can lead to legal repercussions if they cross ethical boundaries [1]. Group 2: Market Strategy and Consumer Trust - Companies are encouraged to focus on market stability and product quality rather than resorting to disparaging competitors, as true consumer recognition comes from delivering good products [1]. - The article advocates for businesses to align their strategies with consumer needs and market positioning, emphasizing the importance of winning market share through product excellence rather than negative marketing tactics [1].

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's legal department has reported the resolution of a significant organized cyber defamation case, with multiple suspects facing criminal charges, highlighting the serious impact of malicious online activities on the company's reputation and the broader digital environment [1][3]. Group 1: Cyber Defamation Case - On May 15, Xiaomi's legal department announced the resolution of a premeditated cyber defamation case, with law enforcement taking action against several suspects [1]. - The criminal group utilized automated software to generate false information about Xiaomi and manipulated thousands of social media accounts to spread malicious rumors, severely damaging the company's reputation [1][3]. - The case reflects new characteristics of online criminal activities, including organized operations and significant financial implications, which pose a serious threat to corporate reputation and the online environment [3]. Group 2: Legal Actions Against Defamation - On May 14, a court ruled in favor of Xiaomi in a defamation case against the self-media account "Minzhi Li," ordering the defendant to delete defamatory content and pay damages of 60,000 yuan [5]. - The defendant issued a signed apology acknowledging the harm caused to Xiaomi and its founder, Lei Jun, expressing regret for the negative perception created [6]. - In another case against "Juhua Technology Co., Ltd.," the court upheld a ruling that the company had published false and misleading information about Xiaomi, resulting in damages of 550,000 yuan [9].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled in favor of Xiaomi against Juhaokan Technology for commercial defamation, affirming that Juhaokan's actions harmed Xiaomi's reputation and ordered compensation of 550,000 yuan [1] Group 1: Court Ruling - On August 31, 2023, the court issued a first-instance judgment stating that Juhaokan published false and misleading information about Xiaomi, damaging its commercial reputation [1] - The court ordered Juhaokan to post a statement on its official Weibo account for seven consecutive days to mitigate the impact of the defamation [1] - The recent final judgment upheld the original ruling, rejecting Juhaokan's appeal [1] Group 2: Analysis of Juhaokan's Actions - The second-instance court found that Juhaokan's Weibo content was directed at Xiaomi, confirming the first-instance court's conclusion [1] - Juhaokan's marketing strategy included positioning itself against Xiaomi by using similar slogans, indicating a malicious intent to undermine a competitor to boost its own sales [1] - The timing of the posts during the Double Eleven shopping festival further suggested an intention to increase its market share at Xiaomi's expense [1]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled in favor of Xiaomi in a defamation case against Juhao Technology, confirming that Juhao's social media posts contained false and misleading information that harmed Xiaomi's reputation and business credibility [1][4]. Group 1: Court Ruling - On August 31, 2023, the court issued a first-instance judgment stating that Juhao Technology's posts on "Vidda Official Weibo" were defamatory towards Xiaomi [1]. - The court ordered Juhao to publish a statement on their Weibo account for seven consecutive days to mitigate the impact and to compensate Xiaomi for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 550,000 yuan [1]. - The recent final judgment upheld the original ruling, dismissing Juhao's appeal and affirming the court's interpretation of the posts as targeting Xiaomi [1]. Group 2: Content Analysis - The court identified specific phrases from Juhao's posts that clearly referenced Xiaomi, such as "米【mei】有问题" and "米【mei】有暴利," which could mislead the public into associating these statements with Xiaomi [4]. - The court noted that Juhao's intent was to undermine Xiaomi's market position, especially during the Double Eleven shopping festival, to boost their own sales [1].