TYGlobe

A seemingly "ordinary" intellectual property rights (IPR) protection case was completely diverted from its original development trajectory, as the plaintiff's retained counsel made an unexpected discovery during pre-trial preparation and submitted a piece of supplementary evidence. Consequently, the second defendant, Taobao Company, which originally believed itself to be free from liability, was adjudged to bear joint and several liability for the infringing acts committed by the first defendant.

Judicial Gist

Online service platform providers shall ensure the unimpeded transmission of valid complaint information, and shall not act as a black hole for complaint information. Meanwhile, in light of the complexity and diversity of tortious acts, especially the type of unfair competition involved in the present case, it is obviously beyond the scope of the due capacity and liability of platforms to require them to accurately determine whether an infringement is constituted solely on the basis of the complainant's simple description and a small amount of evidentiary materials. The complained party shall make corresponding judgments and responses on its own as to whether the goods it produces and sells constitute infringement, and whether it shall voluntarily cease the complained acts. However, Moubao Company unilaterally ruled that the complaint was unfounded and failed to perform the aforesaid forward notification obligation. Consequently, the complained party received no warning of the infringement pertaining to the goods corresponding to the link involved in the case prior to the initiation of the present litigation, which resulted in the continuation of the tortious act and the aggravation of damage consequences. Moubao Company has obvious fault, and shall bear joint and several liability with the store operator for the aggravated part of the damage arising from the tortious act involved in the case.

Summary of Judicial Documents

Court of First Instance / Case Number

Xigang District People's Court of Dalian City

(2024) Liao 0203 Min Chu No. 4194

Court of Second Instance / Case No.

Dalian Intermediate People's Court

(2025) Liao 02 Min Zhong No. 4660

Cause of Action

Unfair Competition Dispute

party

Plaintiff (Appellee): Xiamen Cai* Cultural Media Co., Ltd.

First Defendant: Zhang Moumou

Defendant II (Appellant): Zhejiang Moubao Network Co., Ltd.

Judgment Results of First Instance

Zhang Moumou shall compensate Cai Mou Culture Co., Ltd. for its economic losses.

Zhejiang Moubao Network Co., Ltd. shall be held jointly and severally liable for 20% of the compensation amount payable to Zhang Moumou.

Judgment of the Second Instance

The appellant withdraws the appeal, and the judgment of first instance becomes legally effective.

Time of Second Instance Judgment

July 15, 2025

Legal Provisions Involved in the Case

Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 1195 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Case Handling Notes

An unexpected discovery during pretrial preparation changes the trial strategy

Prior to the court hearing, lawyers shall conduct a comprehensive review of case materials, sort out key points of the case and make full preparations for the hearing. It was during the pre-trial preparation process that the authorized attorney representing the present case accidentally found that the key evidence proving the second defendant shall bear joint and several liability had been omitted and was not submitted to the court at the time of lawsuit filing and case registration. This discovery in pre-trial preparation directly changed the course of the case. After the evidence was supplemented, the original single trial strategy of the present case, which only targeted the first defendant for unfair competition dispute, was adjusted to dual litigation claims consisting of unfair competition dispute and claim for the e-commerce platform's joint and several liability. The difficulty and challenges of the court hearing have thus increased significantly.

Confronted with the pressure of defenses raised by the two defendants, we closely focus on the core of the case.

In response to the defense claims of Defendant No. 1, the representing counsel focused closely on the plaintiff's ownership of intellectual property rights in the present case, clarified the litigation claim that the infringement involved constitutes unfair competition infringement, and confirmed that the infringing act of Defendant No. 1 serves as the basis for Defendant No. 2 to bear joint and several liability. Defendant No. 2 has consistently put forward a defense of liability exemption by virtue of its status as an online service provider. The representing counsel, targeting the "notice obligations" of platforms under the "notice-and-takedown" rule stipulated in Article 1195 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, adduced evidence to prove that among the two complaints filed by the plaintiff simultaneously, Defendant No. 2 only handled one while refusing to process the other. To prove the fault of Defendant No. 2, the representing counsel proceeded from the "prima facie evidence" requirement under relevant legal provisions, compared the contents of the two complaints to demonstrate that the plaintiff's complaint notice had complied with legal requirements, and effectively responded to all defenses raised by Defendant No. 2.

Calmly respond to the appeal filed by Taobao Company, submit a point-by-point defense, and achieve the effect of "subduing the enemy without fighting".

Moubao Company's appeal was far more aggressive than its claims presented during the trial of first instance. Our counsel responded calmly with no laxity, and prepared the defense materials with full diligence. With particular reference to the contents of the first instance court hearing, they disclosed to the people's court of second instance the self-contradictory and inconsistent arguments in Moubao Company's appeal claims, and made a forceful rebuttal by citing the first instance judgment and submitting supplementary new evidence. After multiple rounds of pre-trial contests following the case filing of the second instance, Moubao Company finally voluntarily withdrew its appeal, and our side achieved the desired effect of "subduing the enemy without fighting".