The theme of the 2026 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week is "A Unified Large Market, Fair Competition for the Future." In order to give full play to the demonstrative and leading role of typical cases and to help form a market order featuring superior quality at reasonable prices and healthy competition, the Supreme People's Court, focusing on important legal issues such as the determination of counterfeiting and confusion, infringement of trade secrets, commercial defamation, false advertising, and internet-related unfair competition, as well as the application of the general clause of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, has selected 9 typical cases for release. The cases cover both traditional consumer fields closely related to people's livelihood and emerging and key areas such as artificial intelligence, new energy, and the platform economy. The cases mainly reflect the following characteristics:

First, continuously strengthening the judicial handling of anti-unfair competition and guiding enterprises to operate with integrity. The people's courts adhere to the policy orientation of encouraging honest business operations, continuously strengthen anti-unfair competition adjudication, and effectively regulate unfair competition acts that violate the principle of good faith and seriously harm the lawful rights and interests of operators and consumers, such as riding on the coattails of commercial identifiers, counterfeiting and free-riding, and infringing others' trade secrets. Where there is sufficient evidence of profits gained from infringement, malicious infringement is powerfully deterred through the lawful application of punitive damages. In Case 1, the people's court made clear that where a commercial identifier similar to another party's registered trademark is registered as an enterprise's trade name, and even standardized use is still insufficient to avoid confusion, such registration and use shall be found to constitute unfair competition, further improving the rules for determining the counterfeiting of enterprise names. In Case 2, the people's court found that the remuneration obtained by using another party's trade secret to undertake an engineering project constituted profits gained from infringement, and used it as the base to calculate punitive damages, effectively punishing the violation and fully protecting scientific and technological innovation. In Case 4, the people's court made clear that the title of a well-known film or television series lawfully constitutes a "commercial identifier with certain influence," may be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and may not be counterfeited or free-ridden upon without authorization, safeguarding the vitality of cultural innovation.

Second, focusing on key areas and lawfully rectifying "involution-style" competition. The people's courts attach great importance to promoting the high-quality development of key areas such as the platform economy and the new energy industry through the effective regulation of malicious competitive acts such as false advertising and defamation of goodwill. In Case 7, the people's court expressly pointed out that where an operator engaged in livestreaming e-commerce publishes videos of peers' livestreamed product sales that have been altered by technical means, fabricating a product-promotion relationship and misleading consumers, this constitutes false advertising, thereby guiding the livestreaming e-commerce industry toward regulated competition. In Cases 8 and 9, the people's courts rendered a negative evaluation of the conduct of operators who, in order to promote their own products, maliciously edited and spliced together blade-battery evaluation videos to disparage the performance of competitors' goods, and who published comparative advertisements inconsistent with objective facts to harm competitors' commercial reputation and product goodwill, providing strong judicial safeguards for the healthy development of the relevant industries.

Third, applying the general clause and catch-all provisions prudently to accurately combat new types of unfair competition. In response to new types of unfair competition that have emerged in the course of the development of the digital economy and artificial intelligence and that are seriously harmful and clearly blameworthy, the people's courts balance the relationship between regulation and development, and between technological empowerment and the safeguarding of the public interest, prudently applying the general clause of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the relevant catch-all provisions to find infringement, thereby promoting scientific and technological innovation to be upward and for good. In Case 3, the people's court applied the catch-all provision of the internet-specific article to find that conduct using "transcoding and restructuring" technical means to obstruct or disrupt the normal operation of another party's network product and to interfere with users' choices lawfully constituted unfair competition. In Case 5, the people's court pointed out that providing an order-grabbing "physical plug-in" to circumvent the operating rules of a food-delivery platform, harming the lawful rights and interests of other riders, merchants on the platform, and consumers, and undermining the order of fair competition within the platform, and found that it constituted infringement based on the catch-all provision of the internet-specific article. In Case 6, the people's court applied the general clause of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to find that using artificial intelligence technology to generate and publish, in bulk, evaluation articles targeting another party's software product in order to divert traffic to its own software product constituted unfair competition, lawfully regulating the new type of unfair competition that improperly uses new technology to harm the order of competition.

Going forward, the people's courts will continue to strengthen anti-unfair competition adjudication, constantly improve the rules for competition adjudication, and provide strong judicial services and safeguards for accelerating the construction of a unified national large market and promoting high-quality economic development.

2026 Typical Cases of the People's Courts on Anti-Unfair Competition — Table of Contents:

Case 1: Registering and using a trade name similar to another party's registered trademark to mislead the public constitutes unfair competition — A Marketing Company v. A Jewelry Company, A Trading Firm, et al., dispute over infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition

Case 2: Remuneration obtained by using another party's trade secret to undertake an engineering project may be regarded as profits gained from infringement — A Technology Company v. An Engineering Company, A Technical Company, and A Wire Company, dispute over infringement of trade secrets

Case 3: Malicious "transcoding and restructuring" constitutes unfair competition that obstructs and disrupts the normal operation of another party's network product — An Information Company v. A Technology Company, dispute over internet unfair competition

Case 4: The title of a well-known film or television series that is distinctive constitutes a "commercial identifier with certain influence" — A Technology Company v. A Management Company, A Liquor Company, A Beer Company, et al., dispute over unfair competition

Case 5: Providing an order-grabbing "physical plug-in" that undermines the order of platform competition constitutes unfair competition — A Technology Company, et al. v. An Electronics Company, dispute over unfair competition

Case 6: Using AI to fabricate evaluation articles about another party's products to free-ride and divert traffic constitutes unfair competition — A Technology Company v. A Software Company, et al., dispute over infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition

Case 7: Altering a peer's livestreamed product-sales video to mislead the public constitutes false advertising — A Technology Company, A Network Company v. A Media Company, et al., dispute over unfair competition

Case 8: Maliciously editing another party's product-evaluation video to disparage a competitor constitutes commercial defamation — A Company, A Battery Company v. Sun, A New Energy Company, dispute over commercial defamation

Case 9: A false comparative advertisement by which the source of the compared product can be identified constitutes commercial defamation — A Company v. A Department Store Company, et al., dispute over commercial defamation

Case 1: Registering and using a trade name similar to another party's registered trademark to mislead the public constitutes unfair competition — A Marketing Company v. A Jewelry Company, A Trading Firm, et al., dispute over infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition

[Basic Facts] A marketing company is a licensee of the registered trademarks "Luk Fook" and "Luk Fook Jewellery" approved for use on goods such as ornaments (jewelry), and was authorized to bring suit against acts such as trademark infringement. The trademark "Jin Luk Fook Shangmei" was acquired by a jewelry company through assignment from a third party and was later declared invalid. The marketing company held that the jewelry company's licensing of the "Jin Luk Fook Shangmei" identifier — which is similar to the "Luk Fook" and "Luk Fook Jewellery" trademarks — to a trading firm, and the trading firm's use of that identifier on jewelry goods, infringed the marketing company's trademark rights, and that the jewelry company's registration and use of "Jin Luk Fook Shangmei" as the trade name in its enterprise name constituted unfair competition, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The court of first instance found that the jewelry company's conduct constituted infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition, and ordered the jewelry company to compensate the marketing company RMB 100,000, among other things. Dissatisfied, the jewelry company appealed. The court of second instance upheld the first-instance judgment's finding on the trademark infringement portion, but held that the jewelry company's registration and use of the enterprise name did not constitute unfair competition, and accordingly partially revised the first-instance judgment. Dissatisfied, the marketing company applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. After deciding to try the case itself, the Supreme People's Court revised the judgment to set aside the second-instance judgment and uphold the first-instance judgment. On retrial, the Supreme People's Court held that, through the continuous promotion and use by its registrant, a group company, and by the marketing company, the "Luk Fook" trademark had acquired a relatively high market reputation. As an operator in the same industry, the jewelry company, when subsequently registering its enterprise name, should have been aware of the earlier-registered "Luk Fook" trademark that already enjoyed a relatively high reputation, yet it still registered and used "Jin Luk Fook Shangmei" — a similar identifier that fully contained the words "Luk Fook" — as the trade name in its enterprise name. Subjectively, its intent to ride on the goodwill of the "Luk Fook" trademark was evident; objectively, it was likely to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the goods it provided originated from the group company or that the enterprise itself had a specific connection with the group company, thus constituting unfair competition. Where the second-instance judgment had already found that "Jin Luk Fook Shangmei" and "Luk Fook" were similar and, on that basis, found that the jewelry company had infringed the trademark rights, it was improper for it to conclude, solely on the ground that the jewelry company used its full enterprise name in a standardized manner, that the registration and use of "Jin Luk Fook Shangmei" as the trade name in its enterprise name did not constitute unfair competition; this conclusion was improper and should be corrected.

[Significance] This case is a typical case regulating counterfeiting and confusion carried out through the registration and use of an enterprise name. The judgment made clear that where a commercial identifier similar to another party's registered trademark is registered and used as the trade name in an enterprise name, and even standardized use of the enterprise name is still insufficient to avoid confusion, it shall be found to constitute unfair competition. This case has positive significance for unifying the adjudication standards for intellectual property infringement cases involving commercial identifiers and for effectively curbing "brand-name-leaning" and "free-riding" conduct.

[Case No.] Retrial: Supreme People's Court (2026) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 51

Case 2: Remuneration obtained by using another party's trade secret to undertake an engineering project may be regarded as profits gained from infringement — A Technology Company v. An Engineering Company, A Technical Company, and A Wire Company, dispute over infringement of trade secrets

[Basic Facts] A technology company independently developed a front-end dry-process fine 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 at issue during its cooperation with the technology company. The technology company held that the engineering company had breached the confidentiality agreement signed between the two parties by disclosing, without authorization, the trade secret at issue to a technical company and a wire company, and had used the trade secret at issue in the wire company's blast-furnace gas fine desulfurization project (hereinafter the "accused infringing project"), thereby constituting infringement, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The court of first instance held that the evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that the engineering company had infringed the trade secret at issue, and rendered a judgment dismissing the technology company's claims. Dissatisfied, the technology company appealed. On second instance, the Supreme People's Court held that the engineering company, in breach of the confidentiality obligation agreed with the technology company, had disclosed and used the trade secret at issue and allowed others to use it in the accused infringing project, thereby constituting infringement. The engineering company was the technology provider for the accused infringing project; the trade-secret infringement directly determined the business opportunity of the accused infringing project, and the amount of remuneration the engineering company obtained in the project was a reflection of the commercial value of the trade secret at issue. Therefore, the full amount of its remuneration could be directly found to be profits gained from infringement, and the compensatory damages for infringement that the engineering company should bear amounted to RMB 44.5849 million. Because the engineering company was subjectively aware of its own infringing conduct and objectively committed a serious breach of contract, with evident malice in the infringement and serious circumstances of the infringement, the amount of infringement damages it should bear was determined by applying double punitive damages on the basis of the aforementioned compensatory damages. Because this amount of damages already exceeded the amount claimed by the technology company, the Supreme People's Court rendered a judgment on December 25, 2025, setting aside the first-instance judgment and fully supporting the amount of damages that the technology company claimed against the engineering company, with the technical company and the wire company bearing joint and several liability for compensation within the scope of their respective profits.

[Significance] This case is a typical case that effectively punishes unfair competition in which infringement of trade secrets is used as a means to obtain business opportunities. The judgment made clear that where a business opportunity to undertake an engineering project is obtained only by using another party's trade secret, the amount of remuneration the technology provider obtains in the project may generally be regarded as a reflection of the commercial value of the trade secret; that amount of remuneration may be found to be profits gained from trade-secret infringement, and damages may be calculated on that basis. This case has positive significance for strengthening the protection of trade secrets of high- and new-technology enterprises and for safeguarding fair market competition.

[Case No.] Second instance: Supreme People's Court (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2880

Case 3: Malicious "transcoding and restructuring" constitutes unfair competition that obstructs and disrupts the normal operation of another party's network product — An Information Company v. A Technology Company, dispute over internet unfair competition

[Basic Facts] An information company is the operator of the original-literature website "X Net" and the "X Reading" app, and owns the copyright to a large number of original literary works. A technology company is the operating entity of the "X Secure Browser." When users accessed "X Net" through the "X Secure Browser," the technology company engaged in the following conduct: First, it set up a "reading mode." This mode used transcoding technology to restructure the pages of "X Net" and deleted the website's original functions such as user login, top-up, tipping, and subscription. At the same time, the technology company embedded its own functions such as an "AI reading assistant," read-aloud, and full-screen into the restructured pages, and set up a members-only marker to guide users to pay to activate the "AI Super Membership" that the technology company was prominently promoting. Second, it inserted "floating-window links." The technology company automatically inserted several floating links at the bottom of the "X Net" pages, and the search keywords preset in these links contained terms closely associated with pirate websites, such as "[work title] + read the full text for free." After a user clicked any floating-window link, the user was directed to the result page of a certain search engine, where the top listings were mostly commercial promotion links marked as "ads," as well as links to pirate novel websites that had not obtained ICP filing. After entering the relevant pirate website, users could read all the paid chapter content of "X Net" for free, and the pirate website's pages would automatically apply the "reading mode," further facilitating users' continued free reading. The information company held that the aforementioned conduct of the technology company constituted unfair competition, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing Municipality held on first instance that the "reading mode" of the technology company's browser in fact used a plug-in to transcode and restructure the web-page content of "X Net" operated by the information company. This restructuring conduct was not a simple ad-filtering or interface simplification, but rather systematically stripped away the core interactive and profit-generating functions of the information company's website and embedded the technology company's own value-added services and promotional content. This conduct exceeded the reasonable scope of necessary technical processing carried out to adapt content for PC-side reading or to improve the basic browsing experience, and constituted unfair competition that obstructed and disrupted the normal operation of a network product. In addition, without the consent of the information company, the technology company actively inserted "floating-window links," and the keywords involved in the links clearly pointed to pirated resources; by influencing users' choices, this directly caused the loss of users of the information company's legitimate content, harmed its core competitiveness in attracting and retaining users based on legitimate content, and improperly interfered with users' normal use of the information company's services, thereby constituting unfair competition through inserting links and compelling target redirection. The court of first instance accordingly ordered the technology company to compensate the information company RMB 1.1 million. This first-instance judgment has taken legal effect.

[Significance] This case is a typical case regulating unfair competition that obstructs and disrupts the normal operation of a network product. The judgment made clear that transcoding-and-restructuring conduct that exceeds the necessary scope, systematically replaces the core functions of another party's network product, and embeds one's own services for profit, as well as conduct that actively inserts links with a piracy orientation, influences users' choices, and improperly interferes with the normal operation of another party's network product, constitutes unfair competition. This case has demonstrative significance for purifying the competitive environment of the online-literature market and for protecting the lawful rights and interests of original literary works.

[Case No.] First instance: Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing Municipality (2025) Jing 0105 Min Chu No. 48068

Case 4: The title of a well-known film or television series that is distinctive constitutes a "commercial identifier with certain influence" — A Technology Company v. A Management Company, A Liquor Company, A Beer Company, et al., dispute over unfair competition

[Basic Facts] A technology company is one of the producers of the well-known anti-organized-crime-themed television series "The Knockout" (Kuangbiao), and exclusively holds the intellectual property rights to that series worldwide. A management company and a liquor company are affiliated companies, both established during the period when the television series "The Knockout" was popular. The management company and the liquor company commissioned a beer company to produce multiple "Kuangbiao"-brand alcoholic products, prominently using the variant characters "Kuangbiao" in locations such as the bottle body, bottle label, bottle cap, and packaging box, with a glyph style highly similar to the "Kuangbiao" font used in the opening titles of "The Knockout." The technology company held that the management company and the liquor company had, without authorization, used the title of the television series "The Knockout" in the production, sale, and promotion of alcoholic products, and that the beer company, as a professional alcohol-producing enterprise, had failed to fulfill its duty of prudent review, thereby constituting unfair competition, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The Putuo District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality held on first instance that a television series has the dual attributes of cultural dissemination and commercial value. Although the word "Kuangbiao" is a common Chinese word, as the title of a television series it had, with the series' popularity, formed a stable corresponding relationship with the series and was able to perform an identifying function, thus constituting a "commercial identifier with certain influence." The management company and the liquor company prominently used the variant characters "Kuangbiao" on various alcoholic products; the liquor company registered and used "Kuangbiao" as its enterprise trade name; and in large-scale online and offline promotional activities, they used, in combination, elements such as the name of the protagonist of the television series "The Knockout" and images from the series. Subjectively, they had the intent to ride on another party's commercial reputation; objectively, this caused the relevant public, after encountering the alcoholic products sold by the management company, the liquor company, and others, or their promotions, to mistakenly believe that such products had a specific connection — such as licensed use or business cooperation — with the rights holder of the television series "The Knockout." The beer company failed to conduct a prudent review of the use of the variant characters "Kuangbiao" and was at fault; the conduct of all three of the aforementioned companies constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance accordingly ordered the management company and the liquor company to cease the unfair competition, eliminate the adverse effects, and pay compensation of RMB 5 million, with the beer company bearing joint and several liability for RMB 500,000 thereof. Dissatisfied, the technology company and the beer company appealed. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rendered a second-instance judgment dismissing the appeals and upholding the original judgment.

[Significance] This case is a typical case protecting a "commercial identifier with certain influence." The judgment made clear that where the title of a film or television series has, through use, acquired a certain degree of reputation, distinctive identifying capability, and a stable corresponding relationship, and is able to perform the function of identifying the source of goods, it falls within the commercial identifiers protected by the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law prohibiting confusion. This case has positive significance for effectively regulating new types of counterfeiting and confusion, improving the adjudication rules in the field of unfair competition, and safeguarding the vitality of cultural innovation.

[Case No.] First instance: Putuo District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (2023) Hu 0107 Min Chu No. 14392; Second instance: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2025) Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 120

Case 5: Providing an order-grabbing "physical plug-in" that undermines the order of platform competition constitutes unfair competition — A Technology Company, et al. v. An Electronics Company, dispute over unfair competition

[Basic Facts] Three companies, including a technology company, are the operating entities of a food-delivery platform and a crowdsourcing platform. Beginning in 2024, the three companies successively received a large number of complaints reporting that some riders were using plug-in devices to grab orders on the crowdsourcing platform, seriously undermining the fairness of order-grabbing on the platform. Through investigation, the three companies discovered that an electronics company had opened two shops on an e-commerce platform, selling a product called a "tap-and-slide device" and publishing tutorial videos on the product's use. The tutorials expressly instructed riders to connect the relevant device to the crowdsourcing platform app and, by setting up commands, to achieve the function of quickly refreshing orders and automatically grabbing orders without manually touching the phone screen, at an order-grabbing speed far faster than ordinary manual operation. According to statistics, the cumulative sales of this tap-and-slide product reached several million yuan. The three companies held that the aforementioned conduct of the electronics company constituted unfair competition, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The Huangpu District People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province held on first instance that, first, the conduct of the electronics company harmed the lawful rights and interests of platform operators such as the technology company. Although the tap-and-slide product at issue produced and sold by the electronics company did not directly intercept or modify the platform's data and programs, it used technical means to circumvent the platform's operating rules, directly impacting the platform's original order-dispatch logic, interfering with the normal operation of the dispatching algorithm, causing the platform's order-allocation mechanism to fail and the system's operating load to increase substantially, thus constituting substantial obstruction of the platform's normal business activities. Second, the conduct of the electronics company undermined the fair-competition working environment of the rider community. Riders using the tap-and-slide product at issue could, by technical means, seize high-quality, high-income orders first, breaking the industry ecosystem of fair competition and pay-according-to-work among riders. This conduct directly caused a substantial reduction in the opportunities for compliant riders to obtain orders, unreasonably squeezed their labor income, and harmed the lawful rights and interests and the work enthusiasm of the broad group of compliant riders. Finally, the conduct of the electronics company also harmed the lawful rights and interests of consumers and of merchants on the platform. Non-compliant order-grabbing was prone to problems such as order cancellations, delivery delays, and unreasonable delivery routes, directly lengthening the waiting time for consumers to receive goods and harming consumers' lawful rights and interests; non-compliant order-grabbing caused chaos in order delivery and increased performance risks, reduced the efficiency of merchants' order issuance and delivery turnover, triggered negative reviews from consumers, and harmed merchants' business interests. In sum, the conduct of the electronics company obstructed and disrupted the normal operation of network products or services lawfully provided by other operators. The court of first instance accordingly ordered the electronics company to compensate the technology company and others RMB 3 million, among other things. This first-instance judgment has taken legal effect.

[Significance] This case is a typical case regulating the order of competition in the food-delivery industry. The judgment made clear that producing and selling platform order-grabbing "physical plug-in" products that use technical means to circumvent the platform's operating rules, obstruct and disrupt the normal operation of network services lawfully provided by the platform, undermine the platform's order of fair competition, and harm the lawful rights and interests of other operators and consumers, shall be found to constitute unfair competition. This case has demonstrative significance for lawfully regulating new forms of the platform economy and for safeguarding the healthy and regulated development of the platform economy.

[Case No.] First instance: Huangpu District People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province (2025) Yue 0112 Min Chu No. 19753

Case 6: Using AI to fabricate evaluation articles about another party's products to free-ride and divert traffic constitutes unfair competition — A Technology Company v. A Software Company, et al., dispute over infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition

[Basic Facts] A technology company's main business is the sale of invoicing-and-inventory-management (jinxiaocun) software products, among other things. A software company is an operator in the same industry. Using "jinxiaocun" as the root term, the software company used AI to generate article titles in bulk and then had AI automatically generate the corresponding articles, the content of which all consisted of introductions to and reviews of the technology company's invoicing-and-inventory software. The software company published the aforementioned articles on its own website and set up, before and after the articles, links pointing to its own invoicing-and-inventory software products. The technology company held that the aforementioned conduct of the software company constituted unfair competition, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The Xinwu District People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province held on first instance that the software company used tools such as artificial intelligence to generate in bulk a large number of introduction and review articles targeting another party's "jinxiaocun" software, and published on its official website multiple articles containing the words "X invoicing-and-inventory software," with the aim of using the natural search rules of search engines so that the multiple articles at issue published on its official website could be retrieved and presented in the relevant public's search results, thereby attracting the relevant public to click the links to its own products set up in the articles and achieving the purpose of diverting traffic. This conduct reduced the technology company's user traffic and trading opportunities, while at the same time creating a large amount of junk information on the internet, causing data pollution and disrupting the order of competition, thus constituting unfair competition. The court of first instance accordingly ordered the software company to compensate the technology company for the corresponding economic losses. This first-instance judgment has taken legal effect.

[Significance] This case is a typical case applying the general clause of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate new types of unfair competition. The judgment made clear that using AI technology to generate and publish, in bulk, fabricated evaluation articles carrying one's own products or services in order to divert traffic violates the principle of good faith and business ethics, and constitutes unfair competition that improperly intercepts another party's trading opportunities. This case has a demonstrative effect on the prudent application of the general clause of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the effective regulation of new types of unfair competition, and the lawful regulation of the order of competition in emerging fields.

[Case No.] First instance: Xinwu District People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province (2024) Su 0214 Min Chu No. 9489

Case 7: Altering a peer's livestreamed product-sales video to mislead the public constitutes false advertising — A Technology Company, A Network Company v. A Media Company, et al., dispute over unfair competition

[Basic Facts] A technology company and a network company hold the exclusive commercial authorization for livestreaming clips of the entertainer Huang. A media company published, through three accounts on a certain platform on the same day, product-sales videos with completely identical content; the video footage was all captured from previously publicly livestreamed content of the entertainer Huang, for which the technology company and the network company had obtained exclusive authorization. The media company published videos with the dubbing altered by technical means, replacing the facial-mask brand recommended by Huang in the livestream with a same-category product of another brand, and attached the corresponding product links to sell goods for profit. The technology company and the network company held that the aforementioned conduct of the media company constituted false advertising, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The Yuhang District People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province held on first instance that the false advertising regulated by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes not only advertising directly concerning a product's performance, function, quality, and the like, but also commercial promotion concerning the promotion relationship of a product. In this case, when the media company, through the three accounts at issue on the platform, published the videos at issue to promote goods, it used footage of the livestreaming clips of Huang for which the technology company and the network company had obtained exclusive authorization; the sound content of this footage was altered by technical means to promote a facial mask not sold in Huang's livestream. This commercial promotion was false information manifestly inconsistent with objective facts, and this false information was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the facial-mask product promoted by the media company was associated with Huang or was recommended by Huang, thereby bringing the media company an improper competitive advantage and constituting the unfair competition of false advertising. The court of first instance accordingly ordered the media company and others to bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Dissatisfied, the media company and others appealed. The Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province rendered a second-instance judgment dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

[Significance] This case is a typical case regulating the marketing conduct of livestreaming operators. The judgment made clear that where livestreaming e-commerce uses technical means to alter the recommended products in a peer's livestreamed product-sales video, causing consumers to have a mistaken understanding of the product's promotion relationship, this constitutes false advertising. This case draws a "red line of conduct" for livestreaming practitioners and has positive significance for protecting consumers' lawful rights and interests and guiding the industry toward honest and regulated development.

[Case No.] First instance: Yuhang District People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province (2025) Zhe 0110 Min Chu No. 10694; Second instance: Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province (2026) Zhe 01 Min Zhong No. 2001

Case 8: Maliciously editing another party's product-evaluation video to disparage a competitor constitutes commercial defamation — A Company, A Battery Company v. Sun, A New Energy Company, dispute over commercial defamation

[Basic Facts] A company is the patentee of the "Blade Battery," and a battery company is its wholly-owned subsidiary, mainly engaged in the research, development, and production of the "Blade Battery." A new energy company is an operator in the same industry as the company and the battery company, and Sun is the legal representative of the new energy company. Sun published, on an account he operated on a certain platform, a video comparing the puncture of the "Blade Battery" with that of a solid-state battery. This video maliciously edited a "Blade Battery" puncture-evaluation video previously published by another party, retaining and splicing together the puncture and ignition footage to create the false effect that the "Blade Battery" ignites immediately upon being punctured, while at the same time showing footage of the new energy company's battery products remaining un-ignited after multiple impacts from steel nails, an electric drill, a brick, and the like. After the video was published, it triggered a large number of negative comments from the public about the "Blade Battery." The company and the battery company held that the aforementioned conduct of Sun and the new energy company constituted commercial defamation, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The People's Court of the China (Chongqing) Pilot Free Trade Zone held on first instance that the company, the battery company, and the new energy company are all operators of new-energy battery products and are in a relationship of competition in the same industry. In order to promote its own battery products, the new energy company maliciously edited the "Blade Battery" puncture-evaluation video and spliced together the puncture and ignition footage of the "Blade Battery" to create the false effect that the battery ignites immediately upon being punctured, disparaging the performance of the "Blade Battery" product; this constituted misleading information that distorted the true situation. This video caused the relevant public to make a large number of negative evaluations of the "Blade Battery," harming the commercial reputation of the company and the battery company and the goodwill of their products, thus constituting commercial defamation. The court of first instance accordingly ordered the new energy company to compensate the company and the battery company more than RMB 100,000. This first-instance judgment has taken legal effect.

[Significance] This case is a typical case effectively regulating commercial defamation. The judgment made clear that where an operator in the same industry, in order to promote its own products, maliciously edits and splices together an evaluation video to distort the true situation and publishes false statements to disparage the performance of a competitor's product, this constitutes commercial defamation. This case has demonstrative significance for lawfully rectifying "involution-style" competition and effectively safeguarding operators' lawful rights and interests.

[Case No.] First instance: People's Court of the China (Chongqing) Pilot Free Trade Zone (2026) Yu 0192 Min Chu No. 19081

Case 9: A false comparative advertisement by which the source of the compared product can be identified constitutes commercial defamation — A Company v. A Department Store Company, et al., dispute over commercial defamation

[Basic Facts] A company obtained approval to register multiple "Nutrend" trademarks on goods such as beverages in Class 32; the "Nutrend"-brand calcium-iron-zinc direct-drink sachet products and their packaging and decoration enjoy a certain degree of market reputation. A department store company published a video on a certain short-video platform, using the "Nutrend"-brand calcium-iron-zinc direct-drink sachet product as the compared product. Although the brand identifiers and the like were covered in the video, the outer-packaging form of the compared product was clearly shown. In the video, the department store company claimed that the compared product's "content is all substandard" and that "the calcium, iron, and zinc are made of starch." Above the comment section of the video, the platform automatically generated "Everyone is searching: Nutrend calcium iron zinc...," and the comment section also showed that relevant consumers, based on the features of the outer-packaging can, identified the product as the "Nutrend" calcium-iron-zinc direct-drink sachet, saying things such as "I just bought Nutrend" and "returned it without hesitation," and posting screenshots of returns. The department store company, for its part, actively guided consumers in the comment section to purchase its own products. The company held that the aforementioned conduct of the department store company constituted commercial defamation, and accordingly brought suit before the court.

[Judgment] The Intermediate People's Court of Dongying City, Shandong Province held on first instance that the conduct of the department store company constituted commercial defamation, and accordingly ordered it to cease the unfair competition and compensate the company RMB 300,000, among other things. Dissatisfied, the department store company appealed. The department store company argued that it had already taken technical means in the video to cover the brand identifiers of the compared product, that consumers formed a mistaken understanding based on their own cognition rather than on the department store company's conduct, and that the department store company had not committed commercial defamation. The Higher People's Court of Shandong Province held on second instance that, although the department store company had covered the brand of the compared product, both the big data of the short-video platform and consumers identified the product, through the outer packaging, as the "Nutrend" calcium-iron-zinc direct-drink sachet. The negative evaluations the department store company claimed — that the compared product's "content is all substandard" and that "the calcium, iron, and zinc are made of starch" — were not supported by any professional basis such as authoritative testing or industry standards, constituted false information, exceeded the reasonable limits of normal commentary, affected consumers' willingness to choose and their purchasing decisions, and harmed the company's commercial reputation and product reputation, thus constituting commercial defamation. The Higher People's Court of Shandong Province accordingly rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

[Significance] This case is a typical case for lawfully determining the object harmed by commercial defamation and effectively punishing commercial defamation. The judgment made clear that where the infringer, in livestreaming marketing, covers information such as the brand identifiers of the compared product, but consumers can still identify the source of the compared product through its outer packaging and the like, the producer and operator of the compared product shall be found to be the object harmed by such commercial defamation. This case has positive significance for refining the adjudication standards for commercial defamation and for substantially enhancing the timeliness and effectiveness of judicial protection.

[Case No.] First instance: Intermediate People's Court of Dongying City, Shandong Province (2025) Lu 05 Min Chu No. 37; Second instance: Higher People's Court of Shandong Province (2026) Lu Min Zhong No. 374

Source: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, 2026-09-10. Original: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6042.html