Amidst the surging wave of artificial intelligence development, some operators have attempted to gain a competitive edge through technical "free-riding." However, these attempts have led to legal penalties for crossing regulatory red lines. The case of Beijing Orland Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Party concerned"), investigated by the Chaoyang District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Beijing, serves as a wake-up call for unfair competition in the AI sector. This article analyzes the case from the perspectives of intellectual property and anti-unfair competition law, revealing the boundary between technical neutrality and legal regulation.

I. The Core of the Case: "Free-Riding" in a Networked Environment

The Party concerned promoted a software tool named "DeepSeek Local Deployment Tool" through its website, prominently using the "DeepSeek" name and official icons in multiple locations. Additionally, the Party utilized paid search bidding (keyword marketing) to hijack search traffic by leveraging DeepSeek's brand recognition. In reality, neither the Party nor the software developer had any affiliation with the official operators of DeepSeek. This behavior essentially exploited information asymmetry to "free-ride" on a famous brand's reputation and harvest traffic through imitation.

Such actions are typical: network technology and promotion methods (e.g., bidding rankings, visual web design) become tools for implementing confusion, directly targeting the commercial value of established brands. While the Party did not directly copy DeepSeek’s underlying code or services, by mimicking brand identifiers, they misled consumers into believing there was an authorized or collaborative relationship, thereby obtaining transaction opportunities. This "parasitic" competition model not only damages the legitimate rights of the original owners but also undermines the order of fair market competition.

II. Legal Characterization: Dual Regulation of Confusion and Unfair Competition

Market supervision authorities, based on Article 7, Paragraph 1, Items (3) and (5) of the Interim Provisions on Preventing Unfair Online Competition and Article 6, Item (3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (2019 Amendment), determined that the Party’s actions constituted acts of confusion. They were ordered to cease the illegal acts and were fined 5,000 RMB. Specifically:

1. Elements of Confusion

According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, an act of confusion must meet the following criteria:

Unauthorized use of marks identical or similar to another person’s influential product names, packaging, or decoration;

Leading people to mistake the goods for those of another or to believe there is a specific connection with another party.

In this case, the use of the "DeepSeek" text and icons—combined with paid search rankings to expand reach—was sufficient to lead consumers to falsely assume an authorized partnership.

2. Technical Means Do Not Absolve Illegal Acts

Although the Party utilized internet bidding mechanisms to optimize search results, "technical neutrality" is not a valid defense. The law regulates the purpose and result of an action, not the tool itself. Using network technology to amplify the effect of confusion actually underscores subjective malice and the illegality of the conduct.

3. Duality of Harmful Consequences

To the Rights Holder: The brand reputation and market share of DeepSeek are diluted, and commercial opportunities are unfairly intercepted.

To the Consumer: It may lead to the purchase of low-quality or irrelevant services, infringing on the consumer’s right to know and choose.

To Market Order: Such imitation breeds a "bad money drives out good" phenomenon, hindering technical innovation and healthy industrial growth.

III. Enforcement and Judicial Considerations: Balancing Business Ethics and Competitive Order

When handling such new types of online unfair competition, enforcement and judicial authorities must balance technological progress with legal regulation. Key considerations include:

1. Standards for Judging Business Ethics

Business ethics are the behavioral norms generally followed in specific commercial fields. In the AI and internet sectors, the principle of good faith manifests as respecting the intellectual property of others, avoiding misleading publicity, and refraining from "free-riding." In this case, the Party did not provide a truthful evaluation or comparison of DeepSeek but directly counterfeited its identity, violating basic business ethics.

2. The Protection Boundary of Competitive Order

The core objective of anti-unfair competition law is to maintain fair market order. Freedom of competition must not infringe upon the legitimate rights of others or the public interest. Gaining traffic through confusion is essentially "reaping where one has not sown," which disrupts the rational allocation of market resources and exceeds the reasonable boundaries of free competition.

3. Review of the Rationality of Technology Application

A distinction must be made between technological innovation and technological abuse. While AI and marketing tools can optimize efficiency, they cannot serve as a cover for illegal acts. Even if the Party did not violate technical protocols, the illegal purpose and outcome of their technical application remain subject to legal sanctions.

IV. Industry Insights: Compliance and "Tech for Good"

This case provides a significant warning to operators in the AI field:

Strengthen IP and Brand Compliance: Companies must respect trademarks and identifiers, avoiding the imitation of famous brand elements. Competitive advantages should be built through independent innovation rather than short-term "free-riding."

Regulate Online Marketing and Traffic Acquisition: AI developers and users should establish compliance review mechanisms for marketing content. When performing SEO or bidding rankings, keywords and landing pages must be strictly audited to avoid infringing on established brands.

Build a Comprehensive Compliance Management System: Beyond avoiding confusion, AI companies should protect trade secrets (such as algorithms and data models) and manage third-party partnerships to avoid supply chain legal risks.

Conclusion

The case of Beijing Orland Information Technology Co., Ltd. demonstrates that technological development cannot be an excuse to bypass legal bottom lines. In the AI era, operators must find a balance between innovation and compliance, respecting intellectual property and upholding business ethics. Only then can we achieve a win-win scenario for "Tech for Good" and sustainable industry growth. The timely intervention by regulators is not just a correction of an individual case, but a clear signal to the industry: fair competition is the cornerstone of the market economy, and any attempt to "free-ride" will face the scrutiny of the law.