China’s Typical Cases of Anti-Unfair Competition Released
On September 9, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of the People’s Republic of China released nine “Typical Cases” (典型案例) addressing unfair competition, timed to coincide with China’s 2026 Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week, whose theme was “A Unified National Market, Fair Competition for the Future” (统一大市场，公平竞未来). Note that in the Chinese judicial system, “typical case” compilations serve a guidance function distinct from formal binding precedent. While China does not operate under a common-law stare decisis doctrine, the SPC uses these curated case releases to signal the correct application of law to lower courts, to publicize enforcement priorities to litigants and the public, and to standardize adjudicative standards for recurring or emerging fact patterns.
The nine cases selected for this release span both traditional consumer-facing sectors and newer technology-driven contexts, including artificial intelligence, live-streaming e-commerce, food and beverage retail, and gig-economy delivery platforms. Substantively, the cases cluster around several themes: (1) trademark-adjacent unfair competition, including corporate name registration that creates confusion with a senior mark and unauthorized use of a well-known film title as a “commercial identifier”; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, with a notable holding on calculating infringer profits by reference to contract remuneration; (3) platform and internet-specific unfair competition, addressing browser “transcoding” interference with a competitor’s website and third-party “auto-order-grabbing” tools that circumvent delivery-platform allocation rules; and (4) false advertising and commercial disparagement, including AI-generated fake product reviews, doctored livestream video used to mislead consumers about product endorsements, and deceptively edited comparative product testing videos.
A translation of the SPC-provided explanation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
Case 1
Registering and using a trade name that is similar to another’s registered trademark and misleading the public constitutes unfair competition.
—A case involving a marketing company versus a jewelry company, a trading firm, and others concerning trademark infringement and unfair competition.
[Basic Case Facts]
A marketing company is a licensee of the registered trademarks “Liufu” (Luk Fook) and “Liufu Jewellery” for use on decorative items (jewelry) and other goods. Authorized by the licensee, the marketing company can file lawsuits against trademark infringement. The trademark “Jin Liufu Shangmei” was acquired by the jewelry company from a third party and was later declared invalid. The marketing company argues that the jewelry company’s licensing of the “Jin Liufu Shangmei” mark, which is similar to the “Luk Fook” and “Luk Fook Jewellery” trademarks, to a trading company, and that the trading company’s use of this mark on jewelry infringes on the marketing company’s trademark rights. The marketing company also alleges that the jewelry company’s registration and use of “Jin Liufu Shangmei” as a trade name constitutes unfair competition, and therefore filed a lawsuit in court.
[Judgment Result]
The court of first instance found that the jewelry company’s actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and ordered the jewelry company to compensate the marketing company 100,000 RMB, among other things. The jewelry company appealed. The court of second instance upheld the first instance judgment’s finding regarding trademark infringement, but held that the jewelry company’s registration and use of its company name did not constitute unfair competition, and therefore partially modified the first instance judgment. The marketing company appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme People’s Court reversed the second instance judgment and upheld the first instance judgment.
The Supreme People’s Court, in its retrial, held that the “Liufu” trademark, through continuous promotion and use by its registrant, a certain group, and a certain marketing company, had acquired a high degree of market recognition. As a competitor, the jewelry company, when registering its business name later, should have been aware of the already well-known “Liufu” trademark, yet still registered and used the similar mark “Jin Liufu Shangmei,” which fully contains the characters “Liufu,” as its trade name. Subjectively, this demonstrated a clear intent to exploit the goodwill of the “Liufu” trademark, and objectively, it was likely to mislead the relevant public into believing that its goods originated from the certain group or that its own company had a specific connection with the group, thus constituting unfair competition. The second-instance judgment, having already determined that “Jin Liufu Shangmei” and “Liufu” were similar and accordingly determined that the jewelry company infringed its trademark rights, incorrectly concluded that its use of “Jin Liufu Shangmei” as a trade name did not constitute unfair competition simply because the jewelry company was using its full business name correctly. This conclusion should be corrected.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of regulating the use of registered company names to engage in counterfeiting and confusion. The judgment clarifies that registering and using a commercial mark similar to another’s registered trademark as a trade name in a company name, even if the company name is used properly, is insufficient to avoid confusion and should be considered unfair competition. This case has positive significance for unifying the adjudication standards for intellectual property infringement cases involving commercial marks and effectively curbing “brand imitation” and “free-riding” behaviors.
Case Number
Retrial: 最高人民法院（2026）最高法民再51号
Case 2
Remuneration obtained by using another person’s technical secrets to secure engineering projects can be considered as profit from infringement.
—A case concerning a dispute over infringement of trade secrets between a technology company and an engineering company, a technical company, and a wire company.
[Basic Case Facts]
A technology company independently developed a dry desulfurization technology for blast furnace gas and protected it as a trade secret. In July 2020, an engineering company came into contact with the aforementioned trade secret during a collaboration with the technology company. The technology company believes that the engineering company violated the confidentiality agreement signed by both parties by disclosing the trade secret to a wire rod company without authorization, and by using the trade secret in the wire rod company’s blast furnace gas desulfurization project (hereinafter referred to as the allegedly infringing project), thus constituting infringement, and therefore filed a lawsuit in court.
[Judgment Result]
The court of first instance held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the engineering company had infringed upon the trade secrets in question, and dismissed the technology company’s claim. The technology company appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that the engineering company violated its confidentiality obligations with the technology company by disclosing, using, and allowing others to use the trade secrets in question in the allegedly infringing project, thus constituting infringement. The engineering company was the technology provider for the allegedly infringing project, and the infringement of trade secrets directly determined the commercial opportunities of the project. The engineering company’s compensation in the project reflected the commercial value of the trade secrets in question; therefore, its compensation could be fully recognized as the profits from the infringement, and the engineering company should bear compensatory damages of 44,584,900 RMB. Because the engineering company was subjectively aware of its infringing behavior, objectively committed a serious breach of contract, demonstrated clear malice in its infringement, and the circumstances of the infringement were serious, the court applied double punitive damages to determine the amount of damages it should bear based on the aforementioned compensatory damages. Because the amount of compensation exceeded the amount claimed by the technology company, the Supreme People’s Court issued a judgment on December 25, 2025, revoking the first-instance judgment and fully supporting the amount of damages claimed by the technology company against the engineering company. The technology company and the wire company were held jointly and severally liable for compensation within the scope of their profits.
[Typical Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of effectively punishing unfair competition that uses the infringement of trade secrets to gain business opportunities. The judgment clarifies that when a business opportunity to undertake an engineering project is obtained by utilizing another’s trade secrets, the remuneration received by the technology provider in the project can generally be considered a reflection of the commercial value of the trade secret. This remuneration can be recognized as profit from the infringement of trade secrets, and damages can be calculated based on this. This case has positive significance for strengthening the protection of trade secrets of high-tech enterprises and maintaining fair market competition.
Case Number
Second Instance: 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终2880号
Case 3
Malicious “transcoding and refactoring” constitutes unfair competition that hinders or disrupts the normal operation of others’ network products.
—A case of unfair competition in the internet industry between an information technology company and a technology company.
[Basic Case Facts]
An information company operates the original literature website “XXX.com” and the “XXX Reading” app, owning the copyrights to a large number of original literary works. A technology company operates the “XXX Secure Browser.” When users access “XXX.com” through “XXX Secure Browser,” the technology company performs the following actions: First, it sets up a “reading mode.” This mode reconstructs the “XXX.com” page using transcoding technology, removing the website’s original user login, recharge, reward, and subscription functions. Simultaneously, the technology company embeds an “AI reading assistant” and its own functions such as text-to-speech and full-screen mode into the reconstructed page, and sets up exclusive membership badges to guide users to pay for the technology company’s heavily promoted “AI Premium Membership.” Second, it inserts “floating links.” The technology company automatically inserts several floating links at the bottom of the “XXX.com” page, with preset search keywords including phrases closely related to pirated websites such as “work title + free full text reading.” Clicking any of the floating links redirects users to a search results page. The top results page primarily features commercial promotional links marked “advertisement” and links to pirated novel websites that lack ICP registration. Once on these pirated websites, users can read all paid chapters of the content for free, and the websites automatically switch to a “reading mode” for continued free reading. An information company believes that the technology company’s actions constitute unfair competition and has filed a lawsuit.
[Judgment Result]
The Chaoyang District People’s Court of Beijing held in its first instance judgment that the “reading mode” of a certain technology company’s browser actually transcoded and reconstructed the content of a certain website operated by a certain information company through a plugin. This reconstruction was not simply ad filtering or interface simplification, but rather a systematic stripping away of the information company’s website’s core interactive and profit-making functions, and embedding the technology company’s own value-added services and promotional content. This behavior exceeded the reasonable scope of necessary technical processing for adapting to PC reading or improving the basic browsing experience, constituting unfair competition by hindering and disrupting the normal operation of network products. Furthermore, without the information company’s consent, the technology company proactively inserted “floating links” with keywords clearly pointing to pirated resources. By influencing user choices, this directly led to the loss of users of the information company’s legitimate content, damaging its core competitiveness in attracting and retaining users based on legitimate content, and unduly interfering with users’ normal use of the information company’s services, constituting unfair competition by inserting links and forcibly redirecting users. The court therefore ordered the technology company to compensate the information company 1.1 million RMB. This first-instance judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of regulating unfair competition that hinders or disrupts the normal operation of online products. The judgment clearly states that transcoding and refactoring that exceeds the necessary scope, systematically replacing the core functions of another’s online product and embedding it into one’s own services for profit, as well as actively inserting links pointing to piracy, influencing user choices and unfairly interfering with the normal operation of another’s online product, constitute unfair competition. This case has exemplary significance for purifying the competitive environment of the online literature market and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of original literary works.
Case Number
First Instance: 北京市朝阳区人民法院（2025）京0105民初48068号
Case 4
Distinctive and well-known film and television titles constitute “commercial identifiers with a certain influence.”
—An unfair competition dispute between a technology company and a management company, a winery, a beer company, etc.
[Basic Case Facts]
A technology company, one of the producers of the well-known anti-gangster drama series 狂飙 (The Knockout), exclusively owns the global intellectual property rights to the series. A management company and an alcohol company, affiliated companies, were both established during the peak airing period of The Knockout. The management company and the alcohol company commissioned a beer company to produce multiple The Knockout branded alcoholic beverages, prominently using a variant of the The Knockout font on bottles, labels, caps, and packaging boxes. The font style is highly similar to the The Knockout font used in the opening sequence of The Knockout. The technology company believes that the management company and the alcohol company have used the title of the TV series The Knockout without authorization for the production, sale, and promotion of alcoholic beverages. The alcohol company, as a professional alcoholic beverage producer, failed to fulfill its due diligence obligations, constituting unfair competition, and therefore filed a lawsuit.
[Judgment Result]
The Putuo District People’s Court of Shanghai held in its first instance judgment that films and television dramas possess both cultural dissemination and commercial value. Although the term “狂飙” is a common Chinese word, as a film and television drama title, it has formed a stable association with the drama’s popularity, serving an identification function and constituting a “commercial mark with a certain influence.” The management company and the winery prominently used variant forms of “狂飙” on various alcoholic beverages. The alcohol company registered “狂飙” as its company name and, in large-scale online and offline promotional activities, combined it with elements such as the protagonist’s name and scenes from the film and television drama “狂飙.” Subjectively, this demonstrated an intent to exploit the commercial reputation of others, objectively leading the relevant public, upon encountering the alcoholic beverages sold by the management company and the alcohol company, or their promotional materials, to mistakenly believe that the products had a specific connection with the rights holder of the film and television drama “狂飙,” such as licensing or commercial cooperation. The alcohol company failed to conduct a prudent review of the use of variant forms of “狂飙,” thus being at fault. The actions of all the companies constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance ordered the management company and the alcohol company to cease their unfair competition, eliminate the negative impact, and pay 5 million RMB in damages, with the alcohol company bearing joint liability for 500,000 RMB of that amount. The technology company and the alcohol company appealed. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of protecting “commercial marks with a certain influence.” The judgment clarifies that film and television drama titles, after being used and possessing a certain degree of fame, distinctiveness, and stable correspondence, and capable of identifying the source of goods, fall under the protection of commercial marks protected by the anti-unfair competition law’s provisions against confusing conduct. This case has positive significance for effectively regulating new types of counterfeiting and confusing conduct, improving the rules of adjudication in the field of unfair competition, and safeguarding the vitality of cultural innovation.
Case Number
First Instance: 上海市普陀区人民法院（2023）沪0107民初14392号
Second Instance: 上海知识产权法院（2025）沪73民终120号
Case 5
Providing “physical plug-ins” for order grabbing disrupts the platform’s competitive order and constitutes unfair competition.
—Unfair competition dispute between a technology company and an electronics company
[Basic Case Facts]
Three companies, including a technology company, operate a food delivery platform and a crowdsourcing platform. Since 2024, the three companies have received numerous complaints alleging that some delivery riders are using plug-ins to grab orders on the crowdsourcing platform, severely undermining the fairness of the order-grabbing process. An investigation by the three companies revealed that an electronics company operates two stores on an e-commerce platform, selling a product called a “click-and-slide device” and releasing tutorial videos for its use. The tutorials clearly instruct riders to connect the device to the crowdsourcing platform’s app and, through setting commands, achieve the function of quickly refreshing orders and automatically grabbing orders without manually touching the phone screen, at a speed far faster than conventional manual operation. It is estimated that the cumulative sales of this click-and-slide device have reached several million RMB. The three companies believe that the aforementioned actions of the electronics company constitute unfair competition and have therefore filed a lawsuit in court.
[Judgment Result]
The Huangpu District People’s Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, held in the first instance that, firstly, the actions of the electronics company infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the technology company and other platform operators. Although the electronic company’s product, the “point-and-click” device, did not directly intercept or modify platform data and programs, it bypassed the platform’s operating rules through technical means, directly impacting the platform’s original order dispatch logic, interfering with the normal operation of the scheduling algorithm, causing the platform’s order allocation mechanism to malfunction, and significantly increasing the system’s operating load, thus constituting a substantial obstruction to the platform’s normal business operations. Secondly, the electronic company’s actions damaged the fair competition environment for riders. Riders using the product could use technical means to prioritize and seize high-quality, high-yield orders, breaking the industry ecosystem of fair competition and payment based on work. This behavior directly resulted in a significant reduction in opportunities for compliant riders to obtain orders, unreasonably squeezing their labor income, and harming the legitimate rights and interests and work enthusiasm of the vast majority of compliant riders. Finally, the electronic company’s actions also harmed the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and merchants on the platform. Illegal order-grabbing can easily lead to order cancellations, delivery delays, and unreasonable delivery routes, directly prolonging consumers’ waiting time and harming their legitimate rights and interests. Illegal order-grabbing also causes order delivery chaos, increases fulfillment risks, reduces merchants’ order processing and delivery efficiency, triggers negative consumer reviews, and damages merchants’ business interests. In summary, the actions of the electronics company hindered and disrupted the normal operation of legally provided network products or services by other operators. The court of first instance therefore ordered the electronics company to compensate the technology company and others 3 million RMB. This first-instance judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of regulating competition in the food delivery industry. The judgment clearly states that producing and selling “physical plug-ins” for platform order grabbing, using technical means to circumvent platform operating rules, hindering or disrupting the normal operation of the legally provided network services by the platform, damaging the platform’s fair competition order, and harming the legitimate rights and interests of other operators and consumers, should be considered unfair competition. This case has exemplary significance for legally regulating new forms of platform economy and safeguarding the healthy and standardized development of the platform economy.
Case Number
First Instance: 广东省广州市黄埔区人民法院（2025）粤0112民初19753号
Case Six
Using AI to fabricate product review articles to piggyback on others’ success constitutes unfair competition.
—A case involving a technology company and a software company, among others, concerning trademark infringement and unfair competition.
[Basic Case Facts]
A technology company primarily sells inventory management software products. A software company is a competitor in the same industry. The software company uses AI to generate article titles in batches, using “inventory management” as a keyword, and then automatically generates corresponding articles. The content of these articles is entirely introductions and reviews of the technology company’s inventory management software. The software company publishes these articles on its own website, and includes links to its own inventory management software products before and after the articles. The technology company believes that the software company’s actions constitute unfair competition and has therefore filed a lawsuit.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, held in the first instance that a software company used artificial intelligence and other tools to generate a large number of articles introducing and reviewing other companies’ “inventory management” software, and published many of these articles containing the phrase “the XX inventory management software” on its official website. The purpose was to exploit the natural search rules of search engines to make these articles searchable and appear in the search results of the relevant public, thereby attracting them to click on links to its own products embedded in the articles and achieving traffic generation. This behavior reduced the user traffic and transaction opportunities of the technology company, while also creating a large amount of spam online, causing data pollution, disrupting the competitive order, and constituting unfair competition. The court of first instance therefore ordered the software company to compensate the technology company for the corresponding economic losses. This first-instance judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of applying the general provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate new types of unfair competition. The judgment clarifies that using AI technology to generate and publish fabricated review articles in bulk, and then using them to promote one’s own products or services to attract traffic, violates the principles of good faith and business ethics, and constitutes unfair competition by improperly intercepting others’ business opportunities. This case serves as a model for the prudent application of the general provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, effectively regulating new types of unfair competition, and legally standardizing the competitive order in emerging fields.
Case Number
First Instance: 江苏省无锡市新吴区人民法院（2024）苏0214民初9489号
Case 7
Tampering with competitors’ live-streaming sales videos to mislead the public constitutes false advertising.
—An unfair competition dispute case involving a technology company, an internet company, and a media company, etc.
[Basic Case Facts]
A technology company and an internet company hold exclusive commercial rights to use clips from celebrity Huang’s live streams. A media company simultaneously released identical product-selling videos on three accounts on a certain platform, all featuring screenshots taken from previously released live streams by Huang, for which the technology and internet companies held exclusive rights. The media company further altered the voiceover in the videos, replacing the mask brand recommended by Huang with similar products from other brands and linking them to the products for profit. The technology and internet companies believe the media company’s actions constitute false advertising and have filed a lawsuit.
[Judgment Result]
The Yuhang District People’s Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, held in the first instance that false advertising regulated by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes not only advertising directly targeting the performance, function, and quality of goods, but also commercial advertising related to the promotion of goods. In this case, when a media company promoted goods by publishing videos on three accounts on a certain platform, it used footage from a live stream by Huang, which was exclusively authorized by a certain technology company and a certain internet company. This footage, through technical means, altered the audio content to promote a face mask not sold in Huang’s live stream. This commercial advertising constituted clearly false information inconsistent with objective facts, and this false information was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the face mask promoted by the media company was related to or recommended by Huang, thereby giving the company an unfair competitive advantage and constituting unfair competition through false advertising. The court of first instance therefore ordered the media company and others to bear corresponding compensation liability. The media company and others appealed. The Intermediate People’s Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
[Typical Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of regulating the marketing practices of livestreaming operators. The judgment clarifies that if a livestreaming e-commerce platform uses technical means to tamper with recommended products in a competitor’s livestreaming video, causing consumers to be misled about the promotional relationship of the products, it constitutes false advertising. This case sets a “red line” for the conduct of livestreaming practitioners, which is of positive significance for protecting consumers’ legitimate rights and interests and guiding the industry towards honest and standardized development.
Case Number
First Instance: 浙江省杭州市余杭区人民法院（2025）浙0110民初10694号
Second Instance: 浙江省杭州市中级人民法院（2026）浙01民终2001号
Case 8
Maliciously editing other people’s product review videos to disparage competitors constitutes commercial defamation.
—A commercial defamation dispute case between a certain company, a certain battery company, and Mr. Sun and a certain new energy company.
[Basic Case Facts]
A certain company is the patent holder of the “blade battery,” and a certain battery company is its wholly-owned subsidiary, mainly engaged in the research and development and production of the “blade battery.” A certain new energy company, along with the other two companies, is a business in the same industry, and Mr. Sun is the legal representative of the new energy company. Mr. Sun posted a video comparing the puncture test results of the “blade battery” and solid-state batteries on his platform account. This video maliciously edited a previously released puncture test video of the “blade battery,” retaining and splicing the puncture and fire scenes to create the false effect that the “blade battery” would catch fire immediately upon puncture. It also showed the new energy company’s battery product failing to catch fire after being subjected to multiple impacts from steel nails, electric drills, and bricks. After the video was released, it triggered a large number of negative comments about the “blade battery” from the public. The other two companies believe that the aforementioned actions of Mr. Sun and the new energy company constitute commercial defamation and have therefore filed a lawsuit in court.
[Judgment Result]
The Chongqing Free Trade Zone People’s Court, in its first instance judgment, held that Company A, Company B, and Company C, all operators of new energy battery products, were in a competitive relationship. Company C, in order to promote its own battery products, maliciously edited a video of a “blade battery” puncture test, splicing together footage of the “blade battery” being punctured and catching fire, creating the false effect that the battery immediately catches fire upon puncture, thus disparaging the performance of the “blade battery” product and constituting misleading information that distorted the truth. This video caused a large number of negative reviews of the “blade battery” among the relevant public, damaging the business reputation and product reputation of Company A and Company B, constituting commercial defamation. The court therefore ordered Company C to compensate Company A and Company B over 100,000 RMB. This first instance judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
This case serves as a prime example of effectively regulating commercial defamation. The judgment clarifies that when competitors maliciously edit and splice together review videos to distort the truth and publish false statements to disparage the performance of competitors’ products in order to promote their own products, this constitutes commercial defamation. This case serves as a model for legally addressing “involutionary” competition and effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of businesses.
Case Number
First Instance: 重庆自由贸易试验区人民法院（2026）渝0192民初19081号
Case Nine
The ability to identify false comparative advertising that compares the sources of goods constitutes commercial defamation.
—A commercial defamation dispute between a company and a department store, etc.
[Basic Case Facts]
A company has been granted multiple “诺特兰德” trademark registrations for beverages and other goods in Class 32. The “诺特兰德” brand of calcium, iron, and zinc direct-drinking packets and their packaging have a certain market recognition. A department store posted a video on a short video platform comparing the “诺特兰德” brand calcium, iron, and zinc direct-drinking packets to other products. Although the brand logo was obscured in the video, the packaging of the comparison product was clearly shown. The department store claimed in the video that the comparison product’s “contents are substandard” and that “calcium, iron, and zinc are made of starch.” The video’s comment section automatically generated messages such as “Everyone is searching: 诺特兰德 calcium, iron, and zinc…” The comments also showed that consumers identified the product as the “诺特兰德” calcium, iron, and zinc direct-drinking packets based on the characteristics of the packaging, stating things like “Just bought 诺特兰德” and “I immediately returned it,” and posting screenshots of the returns. The department store then actively encouraged consumers to purchase its own products in the video’s comment section. The company believes that the department store’s actions constitute commercial defamation and has therefore filed a lawsuit.
[Judgment Result]
The Dongying Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province, in its first instance judgment, held that the actions of the department store constituted commercial defamation and ordered it to cease its unfair competition and compensate the other company 300,000 RMB. The department store appealed, arguing that it had used technical means to obscure the brand logo of the compared product in the video, and that consumers’ misidentification was based on their own perception, not the department store’s actions; therefore, the department store had not engaged in commercial defamation. The Shandong Higher People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that although the department store had obscured the brand logo of the compared product, big data from the short video platform and consumers identified the product as “诺特兰德” calcium, iron, and zinc direct-drinking packets based on the outer packaging. The department store’s claims that the compared product’s “contents were substandard” and that “calcium, iron, and zinc are made of starch” lacked authoritative testing, industry standards, or other professional support, constituting false information and exceeding the reasonable limits of normal reviews. This affected consumers’ choices and purchasing decisions, damaged the department store’s business reputation and product reputation, and constituted commercial defamation. The Shandong Higher People’s Court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of legally identifying the target of commercial defamation and effectively punishing such acts. The judgment clarifies that even if the infringer obscures brand logos and other information of the compared goods during live-stream marketing, consumers can still identify the source of the compared goods through their packaging; therefore, the producer and operator of the compared goods should be considered the target of the commercial defamation. This case has positive significance for refining the adjudication standards for commercial defamation and effectively improving the timeliness and effectiveness of judicial protection.
Case Number
First Instance: 山东省东营市中级人民法院（2025）鲁05民初37号
Second Instance: 山东省高级人民法院（2026）鲁民终374号