TYGlobe

Overseas, October 3 -- According to a Reuters report, novelist Christopher Farnsworth has proposed filing a class-action copyright lawsuit against Meta. The report states that the lawsuit alleges that Facebook's parent company misused his books to train its "Alpaca" artificial intelligence large language model.

October 1 -- As reported by Bloomberg, OpenAI and Microsoft's GitHub will appear before the largest U.S. Federal Court of Appeals to resolve their first copyright lawsuit filed by open-source programmers. These programmers allege that Microsoft's Copilot has infringed a decades-old digital copyright.

September 27 -- According to a Reuters report, Amazon Web Services Inc. has been adjudged to pay the patentee a compensation of USD 30.5 million (approximately RMB 214 million) for infringement of patents related to computer network and broadcasting technologies.

September 26 -- According to a Reuters report, a group of American authors have filed a lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Inc., alleging that Meta has abused copyright-protected books to train its artificial intelligence systems.

September 19 -- According to Politico, a federal judge sharply reprimanded the attorneys representing a group of renowned authors, finding them extremely irresponsible in the course of litigation. These authors retained the aforesaid attorneys to file a lawsuit against Meta Inc. over the company's use of their works to train its artificial intelligence technologies.

September 18 -- According to a Bloomberg Law report, Neural AI has filed a lawsuit against NVIDIA, alleging that a suite of software including artificial intelligence tools infringes upon several patents covering machine learning technologies.

September 16 -- According to a Reuters report, Gemini Data, a small artificial intelligence company, has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the search giant has infringed its trademark right to the "Gemini" name.

Jiangxi Courts in China have released 6 typical anti-unfair competition cases, involving acts such as scraping of video resources from video websites and plagiarism of advertising slogans on short-video platforms, among others.

On September 29, the Jiangxi High People's Court held a press conference on serving the construction of a quality-powered province and typical anti-unfair competition cases. It briefed on the trial work of courts across the province in serving the construction of a quality-powered province and implementing fair competition policies since 2023, released 10 typical cases of serving the construction of a quality-powered province and 6 typical anti-unfair competition cases, and answered questions from reporters.

Case 1: The act of scraping video resources from video websites by using software constitutes unfair competition Dispute over Online Unfair Competition between Beijing XX Co., Ltd. and Shangrao XX Co., Ltd. [First instance: Civil Judgment (2023) Gan 11 Minchu No. 72 of the Intermediate People's Court of Shangrao City, Jiangxi Province; Second instance: Civil Judgment (2023) Gan Minzhong No. 383 of the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province]

Judicial Gist

The lawful interests obtained by business entities based on legitimate business models shall be protected by law. The acts of tortfeasors using software technologies to crawl video resources from video websites and block video advertisements impair the advertising revenues of video operators, go beyond the boundary of fair competition, and fall under the online unfair competition acts specified in Item 4, Paragraph 2, Article 12 of the *Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China*.

Case Summary

Beijing XX Co., Ltd. is the operator of a well-known online video platform in China. It invests a large amount of capital each year in the purchase of video copyrights and technical services, takes advertising fees, membership fees and copyright distribution as its main revenue sources, and divides its video content into free and paid categories. Non-members may access content only on the premise of watching video advertisements, while paid members are exempt from watching advertisements. For paid video content, paid members may watch it directly, while non-members shall pay additional fees to access such content. The WeChat Official Account operated by Shangrao XX Co., Ltd. provides users with access to the "LAIMI" website, where users can watch works of Beijing XX Co., Ltd. for free with real-time simultaneous streaming. For the foregoing reasons, Beijing XX Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting the court to order Shangrao XX Co., Ltd. to bear tort liability.

Upon trial, the court holds that Beijing XX Company, as the operator of an online video platform, provides multiple options for consumers. Consumers may, based on their own will and preferences, choose to watch videos for free after viewing advertisements, or pay fees to directly watch videos and VIP member-exclusive episodes without advertisements. This business model conforms to market operation rules and business ethics, and is protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The involved "LAIMI" website allows users to skip pre-roll advertisements and watch all videos on Beijing XX Company's website for free in full. This act undoubtedly obstructs and disrupts the normal operation of the online services provided by Beijing XX Company, and impairs the company's advertising revenue and the interests of its paying members, which constitutes an unfair competition act as specified in Item 4, Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. Although the operating entity of the involved infringing website cannot be identified, Shangrao XX Company, as a professional technology company providing services including technology development and software development, should have known the technical means required for the online video streaming service provided by the involved website and the legal nature of such act. Nevertheless, it still pushed and provided users with access to the involved website through its operated WeChat Official Account and obtained traffic therefrom, hence it shall bear corresponding legal liabilities for the alleged unfair competition act. In view that the evidence submitted by both parties is insufficient to prove the actual loss of Beijing XX Company or the illegal gains of Shangrao XX Company, the court, taking into full consideration various costs of Beijing XX Company and its membership fee price, decides on a discretionary basis that Shangrao XX Company shall pay a total of RMB 100,000 to Beijing XX Company as compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

The court of first instance rendered a judgment: Shangrao XX Co., Ltd. shall immediately cease the act of providing access to the "LAIMI" website via its WeChat Official Account, and pay compensation to Beijing XX Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 100,000. Shangrao XX Co., Ltd. refused to accept the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal. The court of second instance rendered a judgment: The appeal is dismissed and the original judgment is affirmed.

Typical Significance

This is an unfair competition case arising from the scraping of video resources from video websites via software. In recent years, many software developers or business operators scrape video resources from well-known video websites through technical means to obtain traffic and reap commercial gains. Such acts harm the interests of video operators and consumers, and are not derived from the natural attributes of market competition. They have crossed the boundary of legitimate competition, obstructed and disrupted the normal operation of the right holders' online services, and damaged their advertising revenue and the interests of their paid members. The People's Courts regulate such online unfair competition acts in accordance with the law, which is conducive to guiding fair competition in the video industry and promoting the sound and orderly development of the digital economy.

Case 2: The act of plagiarizing others' advertising slogans to "divert traffic" for online commodity sales constitutes unfair competition Dispute over Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition between Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. and De'an XX Co., Ltd., Su Mou et al. [First instance: Civil Judgment (2023) Gan 04 Zhi Min Chu No. 23 of Jiujiang Intermediate People's Court of Jiangxi Province; Second instance: Civil Mediation Statement (2024) Gan Min Zhong No. 86 of the High People's Court of Jiangxi Province]

Judicial Gist

Without the authorization of the right holder, the act of plagiarizing others' advertising slogans for publicity on short-video platforms and providing "traffic diversion" services for commodity sales via links is likely to cause confusion and misidentification among consumers, impair the right holder's trading opportunities, and unfairly obtain competitive interests. Such act is a confusing act as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, and constitutes unfair competition.

Case Summary

Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. is the right holder of a certain advertising copy. It published the aforesaid advertising copy on the Store Platform of the Douyin APP to promote the English speaking scenario sticky notes it sells. The company discovered that Su XX used its advertising copy to promote the products of De'an XX Co., Ltd., which are similar to the products sold by Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. De'an XX Co., Ltd. and Su XX have reached a cooperation promotion plan, pursuant to which Su XX carries out promotion on the aforesaid platform. In light of the foregoing, Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. has filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting the court to order De'an XX Co., Ltd. and Su XX to bear tort liability.

Upon trial, the court holds that Shenzhen XX Company is the copyright owner of a certain advertising copy. Without the permission of Shenzhen XX Company, Su used the latter's advertising slogans on his Douyin account to promote products of the same category as those of Shenzhen XX Company for De'an XX Company, which is likely to mislead consumers purchasing the products into believing that there is an association between the products promoted by Su and Shenzhen XX Company. Therefore, Su's act constitutes infringement, and he shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law. Although De'an XX Company did not use the advertising slogans of Shenzhen XX Company on its Douyin account or Douyin Store, it reached a consensus on promotion with Su, and knew or should have known that Su used the aforesaid advertising slogans. Furthermore, there is no evidence proving that De'an XX Company raised any objection to Su's infringing act. Su's use of the advertising slogans of Shenzhen XX Company misled consumers to redirect to De'an XX Company's product page through the "Product Showcase", causing confusion among consumers over the same category of products of Shenzhen XX Company and De'an XX Company. This act falls into the confusing acts prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, and constitutes unfair competition.

The court of first instance ruled that: De'an XX Co., Ltd. and Su Mou shall immediately cease the acts of infringing on the advertising copy of Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd.; De'an XX Co., Ltd. shall compensate Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. a total of RMB 54,000 for economic losses and reasonable expenses, and Su Mou shall compensate Shenzhen XX Co., Ltd. a total of RMB 34,000 for economic losses and reasonable expenses. De'an XX Co., Ltd. refused to accept the first-instance judgment and lodged an appeal. During the second-instance trial, the parties reached a mediation agreement.

Typical Significance

This case is an unfair competition case arising from the act of plagiarizing others' advertising slogans to divert traffic for online sales of commodities. Advertising slogans help boost enterprises' sales, expand the reach of their brand communication, and enhance their competitiveness. Therefore, a high-quality advertising slogan is an important competitive strength of an enterprise. The judgment in this case explicitly affirms that the act of plagiarizing others' advertising slogans to divert traffic for online sales of commodities disrupts the market competition order, impairs the legitimate rights and interests of right holders, constitutes unfair competition, and shall bear corresponding tort liability. The judgment in this case also guides business operators to use advertising and publicity in compliance with the law in market competition, so as to standardize the fair competition order of the advertising market.