With Judgments Attached | Supreme Court Releases 2024 Typical Intellectual Property Cases of People's Courts (8 Cases)

On April 21, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference for the 2025 Intellectual Property Publicity Week, releasing the "Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Chinese Courts (2024)" and the 2024 Typical Intellectual Property Cases of People's Courts. Vice President of the Supreme People's Court Tao Kaiyuan, Chief Judge of the Third Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court Li Jian, and Deputy Chief Judge of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court Qiu Zhonglin attended the press conference and answered questions from reporters. The press conference was hosted by Lin Wenxue, spokesperson of the Supreme People's Court.

Table of Contents

Case 1: Patent Ownership Dispute over "mRNA Osteoarthritis Drug" Invention

Case 2: Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case in Real Estate Sector

Case 3: Trade Secret Infringement Case of "Spoiling" Unreleased Game Characters

Case 4: Copyright Infringement Case of "AI Face-Swapping"

Case 5: Game "Reskinning" Infringement Case

Case 6: Unfair Competition Case of Online Product Reviews with "Praise and Criticism"

Case 7: Unfair Competition Case of Ticket-Grabbing Software

Case 8: Criminal Case with Incidental Civil Action for Copyright Infringement of Popular Film and Television Works

Case 1: Patent Ownership Dispute over "mRNA Osteoarthritis Drug" Invention

[Shenzhen Zhen X Medical Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Shenzhen Rui X Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Hu X Patent Ownership Dispute]

Second Instance: Supreme People's Court (2023) Supreme Court Civil Final No. 871

[Basic Facts]

Shenzhen Zhen X Medical Technology Co., Ltd. was established in January 2018 as a high-tech company jointly founded by three returning Chinese scholars Yu X, Wang X, and Hu X, aiming to promote the research and development and transformation of mRNA technology in the biomedical field. In September 2019, Hu X established Shenzhen Rui X Biotechnology Co., Ltd. A patent titled "An mRNA Formulation for Osteoarthritis Drug and Its Preparation Method and Application" was applied for by Shenzhen Rui X Biotechnology Co., Ltd. in June 2021 and granted in October 2021. Shenzhen Zhen X Medical Technology Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming that the patent in question was a service invention completed by Hu X during his employment at their company, and that Shenzhen Rui X Biotechnology Co., Ltd.'s patent application damaged the legitimate rights and interests of Shenzhen Zhen X Medical Technology Co., Ltd. They requested the court to confirm that the patent rights belong to Shenzhen Zhen X Medical Technology Co., Ltd. The first instance court dismissed the claims of Shenzhen Zhen X Medical Technology Co., Ltd., who then appealed.

[Judgment]

The Supreme People's Court in the second instance held that this case involved several returning Chinese scholars, multiple enterprises and institutions, and cutting-edge technology in the biomedical field. Considering the importance of mRNA technology in the pharmaceutical field and the fact that the three researchers had previously worked closely together, jointly returned to China to start businesses, and made significant contributions to the development of innovative drugs related to mRNA technology, the court adopted an approach of "prioritizing mediation" and "resolving emotional issues before legal issues." Through on-site investigations and circuit court hearings, the court actively promoted mediation, facilitating the parties to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding this case and other related lawsuits. This resolved the conflicts and series of disputes between the parties that had lasted for more than two years, promoting cooperation between the parties in the frontier track of the biomedical field, achieving a win-win, multi-win, and shared-win outcome.

[Significance]

This case was heard publicly on "National Constitution Day" by a five-judge collegial panel headed by Vice President and Level-Two Grand Justice Tao Kaiyuan of the Supreme People's Court, with nearly 40 media outlets covering the event. The mRNA technology involved in this case is a key generic and cutting-edge technology in the biomedical field and a typical representative of new productive forces. The proper resolution of this case and related disputes further demonstrates the People's Court's clear orientation toward encouraging innovation, promoting integrity, respecting science, and respecting talent. It is beneficial for researchers to boldly innovate and focus on entrepreneurship, better stimulating the innovative vitality of the whole society, and promoting the integrated development of scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation.

Case 2: Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case in Real Estate Sector

[Ren X Land (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd., Nanjing Ren X Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Singapore Ren X Holdings Co., Ltd. vs. Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute]

Second Instance: Supreme People's Court (2023) Supreme Court Civil Final No. 418

[Basic Facts]

In 1993, Ren X Land (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. were established. In 1994, Nanjing Ren X Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was established. Since 1995, these companies have launched real estate projects in Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, and other places, and have successively registered multiple "Ren X" trademarks in various categories including construction services. In January 2002, the legal representative of Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd., Jin X, purchased a property developed by Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. in Shanghai. Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. was registered and established on November 26, 2002, and began using the "Ren X" enterprise name. It subsequently developed Ren X International, Ren X Meilin County, and Ren X Crystal City properties in the Lanzhou area. Ren X Land (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and others believed that the above actions of Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and thus filed a lawsuit. The first instance court ruled that Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. should cease the infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition, compensate Ren X Land (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and others for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 13,405,992.3 yuan, and publish a statement to eliminate the impact. Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. appealed.

[Judgment]

The Supreme People's Court in the second instance held that although Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. only used the alleged infringing mark in the Lanzhou area, considering the similarity between the alleged infringing mark and the trademark in question, the correlation between the services used and the goods, the reputation of the "Ren X" trademark, the actual usage method of Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd., and the actual confusion that had occurred, it could be determined that the alleged infringing acts of Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. were likely to cause confusion among the relevant public, constituting trademark infringement. Based on the use of the "Ren X" enterprise name by Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. and others, including the fact that the legal representative of Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. had purchased a property developed by Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd., knowing that Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. had previously used the "Ren X" enterprise name, it could be determined that the "Ren X" enterprise name constituted a prior enterprise name with certain influence. As a business operator in the same industry, Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. should have avoided using it, but it still registered and used the "Ren X" enterprise name to engage in business activities in the same industry as Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. and others, which could easily lead the relevant public to believe that the properties it developed and constructed were associated with Shanghai Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. and others. The above actions of Lanzhou Ren X Real Estate Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition. The second instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Significance]

This case involves the protection of enterprise names and trademark rights in the field of real estate development and construction, and such disputes are currently prevalent. The case clarifies common issues in trademark use, likelihood of confusion, and fair use in trademark infringement in the real estate field, and clarifies the review criteria and standards of proof for protecting the competitive interests of enterprise names under Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. The judgment incorporates the circumstance of the infringer knowingly using another's prior enterprise name into the determination of an "enterprise name with certain influence," conveying the judicial concept of protecting honest business operations and maintaining fair competition order.

Case 3: Trade Secret Infringement Case of "Spoiling" Unreleased Game Characters

[Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Chen X Trade Secret Infringement Dispute]

First Instance: Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court (2024) Hu 0115 Min Chu No. 38294

[Basic Facts]

Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd. is the operator of a certain game and has obtained permission from the copyright owner of the game to use and enforce rights. The game has received enthusiastic response in the global game market since its launch. In its operation, Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd. updates versions at regular intervals, adding new characters, scenes, storylines, activities, and other content to maintain game attention and product vitality. This content is tested internally in advance. For this purpose, Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliated companies recruited multiple players, including Chen X, to participate in internal testing and signed confidentiality agreements. During the internal testing period, Chen X, without permission, secretly photographed and recorded the in-game character models (i.e., game character models that players can control), skill effects, skill data, and other test content and screens of the game "Ru X X" and 7 other game characters, and disclosed them to third parties multiple times. After discovering this, Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd., on the grounds that the relevant information constituted trade secrets and further disclosure would cause irreparable damage, filed a pre-litigation behavior preservation application with the People's Court and filed a lawsuit within the statutory period, requesting an order to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for losses. Chen X argued that the above game content did not constitute trade secrets.

[Judgment]

The Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court examined the pre-litigation behavior preservation application and found that Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd.'s request had a factual basis and legal grounds. If appropriate preservation measures were not taken, it might cause irreparable damage to the legitimate rights and interests of Shanghai Mi X Technology Co., Ltd., and taking behavior preservation would not lead to a significant imbalance of interests between the parties. Therefore, within 48 hours of receiving the application, the court made a ruling ordering Chen X not to disclose, use, or allow others to use the game content that he had secretly recorded during his participation in the game testing.

The Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court in the first instance held that the continuous dynamic game screens formed by the combination of elements such as the in-game character models, character skill effects, and skill data of the 7 game characters in the case, as well as other content, conformed to the characteristics of business information and the constituent elements of trade secrets as stipulated in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and were trade secrets protected by the law. Chen X violated his confidentiality obligations and carried out actions of secretly photographing and disseminating these trade secrets, and should bear the corresponding legal responsibility. The essence of trade secret protection is the competitive advantage brought by the trade secret owner; even if the game characters have been made public due to version updates, Chen X is still not allowed to disclose the test game screens that he may have access to. The court therefore ruled that Chen X should stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.

[Significance]

This case involves the determination standards and judgment rules for unreleased game character designs and other information constituting trade secrets, which has positive significance for promoting the healthy development of the game industry. The pre-litigation behavior preservation ruling, combined with the characteristics of the online game industry, provides timely legal remedies for the applicant. The judgment targets the form of game character secrets, not only protecting the content of game characters themselves but also protecting the business model of enhancing attention through game version updates, as well as the competitive advantage brought by this business model, thereby effectively regulating the behavior of premature "spoiling."

Case 4: Copyright Infringement Case of "AI Face-Swapping"

[Chen X vs. Shanghai Yi X Network Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of Information Network Dissemination Right of Works]

First Instance: Shanghai Jiading District People's Court (2024) Hu 0114 Min Chu No. 1326

[Basic Facts]

Chen X published 13 short videos on the Douyin platform through a verified account named "Photographer X X," showing a woman in ancient costume, each video lasting about 10 seconds. Shanghai Yi X Network Technology Co., Ltd. developed a Douyin mini-program called "X Yan," using AI video synthesis algorithms to provide face-swapping technology to users. The 13 short videos displayed on "X Yan" and the 13 short videos published by Chen X only differed in the facial features of the characters, while the video scenes, shots, character modeling, and actions were basically the same. Users of "X Yan" could watch advertisements or purchase memberships to replace the faces in the videos displayed on the mini-program with their own faces and save them. Chen X filed a lawsuit requesting the court to order Shanghai Yi X Network Technology Co., Ltd. to stop the infringement, apologize, and compensate for losses of 48,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 2,000 yuan.

[Judgment]

The Shanghai Jiading District People's Court in the first instance held that the original videos shot by Chen X demonstrated originality in content arrangement, scene selection, shooting angles, and other aspects, and were audiovisual works protected by copyright law. The videos displayed by the "X Yan" mini-program were created by using AI algorithms to partially replace and synthesize the original videos, and the two were substantially similar. Shanghai Yi X Network Technology Co., Ltd., with "AI face-swapping" as its selling point, provided platforms, materials, and technology, enabling users to use the original videos in a "face-swapping" manner at any time and place of their choice, seeking commercial benefits, and infringing on Chen X's right of information network dissemination of works. This act was neither an original adaptation nor constituted fair use, nor could it be defended as technological neutrality. Shanghai Yi X Network Technology Co., Ltd. actively cooperated in the litigation by deleting videos, fulfilling algorithm filing procedures, and other rectification measures, and accepted judicial suggestions on using algorithmic technology to provide network services, making commitments to standardize operations. Chen X expressed understanding and withdrew the claims for stopping the infringement and apologizing. Accordingly, the court ruled that Shanghai Yi X Network Technology Co., Ltd. should compensate Chen X for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 7,500 yuan. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.

[Significance]

This case is a typical dispute in the context of generative algorithms, involving the nature determination of using artificial intelligence technology to partially synthesize others' works. The judgment clarifies that "AI face-swapping" does not constitute original adaptation or fair use of the original work; providers of network services using artificial intelligence technology have a duty of reasonable care and should not use algorithmic technology to infringe on others' copyrights. The case balances technological innovation and rights protection, clarifying the legal boundaries of artificial intelligence technology applications. The People's Court focuses on the needs of emerging technology innovation applications and algorithm governance, encouraging enterprises to strengthen the legal review of material sources and generated content, as well as algorithm security assessment, strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights and personality rights, and guiding enterprises to standardize digital transformation.

Case 5: Game "Reskinning" Infringement Case

[Chengdu Le X Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Li X Network Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Shenzhen Jiu X Interactive Technology Co., Ltd., Hainan Fan X Technology Co., Ltd. Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute]

Second Instance: Guangdong High People's Court (2023) Yue Min Final No. 4326

[Basic Facts]

"X X Awakening" is a strategy simulation game (SLG) developed and operated by Chengdu Le X Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Li X Network Technology Co., Ltd. "X X Official" is a WeChat platform mini-program game developed and operated by Shenzhen Jiu X Interactive Technology Co., Ltd. and Hainan Fan X Technology Co., Ltd. From December 2020 to March 2022, the revenue of the "X X Official" game was approximately 18.9 million yuan, and approximately 12.5 million yuan after deducting the corresponding channel fees. Chengdu Le X Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Li X Network Technology Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit, claiming that the "reskinning" behavior of the "X X Official" game constituted copyright infringement and unfair competition, requesting an order to stop the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses of 10 million yuan and reasonable rights protection expenses of 500,000 yuan. Upon comparison, the two games had basically the same overall structure and gameplay systems, with even the parameter types, specific values, and interaction relationships of game elements corresponding one-to-one, and even a large number of textual errors were completely consistent, with the only difference being in the art and audiovisual materials. The first instance court found that the alleged acts constituted copyright infringement and ordered Shenzhen Jiu X Interactive Technology Co., Ltd. and Hainan Fan X Technology Co., Ltd. to immediately stop developing, operating, and promoting the "X X Official" game, publish a statement to eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses of 10 million yuan and reasonable rights protection expenses of 500,000 yuan. Shenzhen Jiu X Interactive Technology Co., Ltd. and Hainan Fan X Technology Co., Ltd. appealed.

[Judgment]

The Guangdong High People's Court in the second instance held that what copyright law protects is the original expression of game gameplay rules. The game structure, system framework, data planning, and corresponding relationships that the plaintiff sought to protect in this case belong to gameplay mechanism design, reflecting the game developer's comprehensive thinking about the simulated game world from details to the whole, and are not expressions in the sense of copyright law. Game gameplay rules do not constitute "other intellectual achievements with the characteristics of works," so the alleged acts do not constitute copyright infringement. However, the alleged acts violated the principles of good faith and business ethics, exceeded reasonable limits by comprehensively imitating and copying the overall classification framework and detailed value settings of the game gameplay design, merely replacing the art resources, and through this "reskinning" method, diverted and seized the relevant game market share, disrupted the market competition order, and seriously damaged the core competitive interests of Chengdu Le X Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Li X Network Technology Co., Ltd., constituting unfair competition. The first instance judgment correctly identified the facts, and although the application of the law was improper, the judgment result was correct. The second instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Significance]

This case clearly establishes that game gameplay rules do not belong to expressions in the sense of copyright law and should not be identified as "other intellectual achievements with the characteristics of works." The judgment clarifies the legal boundaries of copyright law and anti-unfair competition law in protecting game gameplay, as well as the analytical framework and judgment rules, which helps promote innovation and creation and healthy competition in the digital entertainment industry.

Case 6: Unfair Competition Case of Online Product Reviews with "Praise and Criticism"

[Wuxi Shi X Clothing Co., Ltd., Wuxi Jiu X Trading Co., Ltd. vs. Suzhou Bu X E-commerce Co., Ltd., Suzhou Xi X E-commerce Co., Ltd., Suzhou Xi X Network Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou Ku X Network Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute]

Second Instance: Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu Province (2023) Su 05 Min Final No. 5492

[Basic Facts]

Wuxi Shi X Clothing Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Jiu X Trading Co., Ltd. discovered that there was an article on a social media platform published by Suzhou Bu X E-commerce Co., Ltd. reviewing various sun protection clothing, which tested and compared 8 different brands of sun protection clothing, including Brand A under Wuxi Shi X Clothing Co., Ltd. and Brand B under an affiliate of Suzhou Bu X E-commerce Co., Ltd. Wuxi Shi X Clothing Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Jiu X Trading Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit requesting the court to order Suzhou Bu X E-commerce Co., Ltd. and others to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 550,000 yuan. The first instance court organized the parties to use the instruments mentioned in the article as the source of the test data to test Brand A and Brand B sun protection clothing, and the test data did not match the experimental data indicated in the article. Wuxi Shi X Clothing Co., Ltd. provided a test report for Brand A sun protection clothing, which showed that Brand A sun protection clothing met all the required indicators. The first instance court found that the alleged acts constituted false publicity and unfair competition, and ruled that Suzhou Bu X E-commerce Co., Ltd. should stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 45,000 yuan. Both parties appealed.

[Judgment]

The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu Province, in the second instance held that Suzhou Bu X E-commerce Co., Ltd. used test data and comments in the review section to highlight that the sun protection of Brand B sun protection clothing was stronger than that of Brand A, but there was no evidence to prove that its evaluation results were based on the same test environment and test conditions. The UV sun protection data of Brand A and Brand B sun protection clothing indicated in the article lacked scientific basis and reliability, which could easily mislead the relevant public and affect consumers' purchasing decisions, constituting false publicity and unfair competition. The review involved multiple brands, and the review comments contained directly negative or affirmative content, and did not use prominent markings to highlight Brand A among the various brands. The alleged acts had not reached the extent of damaging the business reputation and product reputation of Wuxi Shi X Clothing Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Jiu X Trading Co., Ltd., so they did not constitute commercial defamation. Accordingly, the second instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Significance]

This case analyzes and determines the legitimacy of product reviews published online. Reviews are a new phenomenon driven by internet consumption, where reviewers use professional knowledge combined with test results to provide evaluations and suggestions for certain products, stores, or services, providing convenience for consumers to break information barriers and reduce purchasing costs. This "third-party perspective" personal experience, due to its "objective" nature, is widely favored. However, some reviews use fabricated facts, concealed selection, "criticize one and praise another" and other means to mislead consumers, or even conduct marketing in the name of reviews, deviating from the original intention of reviews. This case, based on the legislative purpose of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, clarifies the legal boundaries of review behavior, effectively regulates false review behavior, and promotes the healthy development of the review industry on the track of the rule of law.

Case 7: Unfair Competition Case of Ticket-Grabbing Software

[Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd. vs. Zheng X Zhong Network Unfair Competition Dispute]

First Instance: Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court (2024) Jing 0101 Min Chu No. 4607

[Basic Facts]

Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd. is one of the largest comprehensive ticketing platform enterprises in China, operating Da X Net and Da X APP with ticketing functions. Zheng X Zhong sold ticket-grabbing software targeting the Da X APP through online stores. Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit, claiming that Zheng X Zhong specifically developed and sold plug-in software targeting its ticketing APP, used to grab tickets sold on the APP, constituting unfair competition, and requested the court to order Zheng X Zhong to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses. Zheng X Zhong argued that he did not have a competitive relationship with Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd., that he was only a seller of the ticket-grabbing software and not a developer, and that his sale of the ticket-grabbing software had no subjective malice and did not constitute unfair competition.

[Judgment]

The Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court in the first instance held that Zheng X Zhong provided ticket-grabbing services to users of Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd., using the business activities and user groups of Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd. as the basic resources for his own business, so the alleged acts belonged to market competition behavior and fell within the scope of adjustment and regulation of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The alleged acts were essentially software replacing manual methods for users to grab performance tickets on the Da X platform. These acts not only directly increased the platform's operating costs and interfered with operators making correct business decisions, but also increased the difficulty for users to purchase tickets on the Da X platform and reduced users' evaluation of the services provided by the Da X platform. Although the alleged acts did not directly reduce the ticket sales of individual performances on the Da X platform, they led to damage to the business interests and reputation of the Da X platform, harming the competitive interests of Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd. At the same time, the alleged acts did not belong to fair competition based on technological innovation, and also harmed consumers' legitimate rights and interests and long-term interests, which was not conducive to the promotion of a fair and orderly market competition order and overall social welfare. In summary, the alleged acts constituted unfair competition. Given that the alleged acts had already stopped, the court did not issue a separate order to stop the infringement, and ruled that Zheng X Zhong should compensate Beijing Da X Culture Media Development Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 20,000 yuan. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.

[Significance]

This case clearly establishes that the ticket-grabbing software in question uses technical means to provide users with unfair ticket-grabbing advantages, destroying the platform's ticket purchasing rules, interfering with and obstructing the normal operation of the platform's ticket sales business, and harming the competitive interests of specific operators. On this basis, factors such as consumers' fair ticket purchasing rights and the normal order of the ticket market are taken into consideration, and the alleged acts are determined to constitute unfair competition. This case warns service providers and technology developers of ticket-grabbing services that they need to comply with legal rules, and has positive significance for combating online black production, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers, and building a fair and orderly ticket purchasing order and market competition environment.

Case 8: Criminal Case with Incidental Civil Action for Copyright Infringement of Popular Film and Television Works

First Instance: Dongyang People's Court, Zhejiang Province (2024) Zhe 0783 Xing Chu No. 585

[Basic Facts]

Since May 2020, the defendant Lu X Qian has built multiple illegal film and television websites by purchasing domain names, renting servers, buying system programs, and film and television website templates. During this period, the defendants Li X Shi and Fang X, knowing that the defendant Lu X Qian was operating illegal film and television websites, provided program technical maintenance services for him and received fees of about 6,990 yuan. Without the permission of the copyright owners such as Beijing Guang X Film Industry Co., Ltd. and other rights holders, Lu X Qian made more than 120,000 film and television works, including "Hot and Spicy" and "Racing Life 2," available online for visitors to watch by adding video links and other methods, and cooperated with illegal advertisers to place advertisements on the websites. From April 30, 2022, to February 15, 2024, the defendant Lu X Qian received advertising fees of more than 1.48 million yuan. The People's Procuratorate of Dongyang City, Zhejiang Province, charged the defendants Lu X Qian, Fang X, and Li X Shi with the crime of copyright infringement and initiated a public prosecution. During the criminal proceedings, Beijing Guang X Film Industry Co., Ltd. and four other companies filed incidental civil actions, requesting the court to order Lu X Qian to bear the corresponding civil liability.

[Judgment]

The Dongyang People's Court, Zhejiang Province, in the first instance held that the defendant Lu X Qian, for the purpose of profit, without the permission of the copyright owners, disseminated others' audiovisual works to the public through information networks, with illegal gains of a huge amount; the defendants Fang X and Li X Shi, knowing that others were infringing copyright, still provided assistance, and their actions also constituted the crime of copyright infringement. Regarding the incidental civil actions filed by the incidental civil action plaintiffs, the court determined the amount of economic losses to be compensated by the defendant Lu X Qian to the incidental civil action plaintiffs based on a comprehensive consideration of the nature, time, and profits of the defendants' infringing acts. The court sentenced the defendant Lu X Qian to four years' imprisonment and a fine of 1.5 million yuan; the defendant Fang X to one year's imprisonment, suspended for one year and six months, and a fine of 16,000 yuan; the defendant Li X Shi to ten months' imprisonment, suspended for one year and four months, and a fine of 10,000 yuan; the defendant Lu X Qian was ordered to compensate the incidental civil action plaintiffs for economic losses totaling 880,000 yuan; the illegal gains recovered and the tools used in the crime were confiscated. After the judgment, none of the defendants or incidental civil action plaintiffs appealed, and the procuratorate did not file a protest.

[Significance]

This case is an example of severely punishing illegal and criminal acts of disseminating famous key protected theatrical films. Pirating popular TV dramas and theatrical films, building illegal and irregular film and television websites, and disseminating relevant film and television works to the public through information networks involve infringement of the copyright of film and television works. The trial of this case fully demonstrates the advantages of the "three-in-one" trial mechanism for intellectual property civil, criminal, and administrative cases, solving both the conviction and sentencing issues of the defendants and the civil compensation issues of the victims, providing timely and comprehensive protection for intellectual property rights holders, and achieving an organic unity of combating crime and efficient rights protection.

本文由AI辅助翻译

This article was translated with AI assistance.