The first trial of Jay Chou's case against NetEase for unfair competition has ended. NetEase won the case and will be heard on Tuesday next week.

Metropolis Express News There is new news in the case of Jay Chou suing NetEase for unfair competition: the second instance of the case between Guangzhou NetEase Computer Systems Co., Ltd. and Jewel Music Co., Ltd. will be heard on March 26. According to relevant sources close to NetEase's "Tianxia 3", the first instance of the case ruled in favor of the defendant "Tianxia 3", and the court rejected all litigation claims including Jewell's 2.05 million yuan claim.

The court found that the forwarding lottery model is a common publicity method on Weibo, and "Tianxia 3" player welfare activities such as giving away Jay Chou's digital album at Weibo's own expense are not for-profit. , it is difficult for the public to associate Jay Chou as a spokesperson, and it did not violate business ethics. It was determined that the defendant did not constitute unfair competition.

Jwell and "World 3" released a statement

In July 2022, Jay Chou released a new album "The Greatest Work" after 6 years. , triggering an upsurge in lottery and giving away digital albums across the Internet, and many game products such as "Tianxia 3" spontaneously organized Weibo lottery activities to give back to users. On July 11, Jewel announced that it would take legal measures against "World 3" for privately giving away Jay Chou's new album and concert tickets. After the announcement, "Tianxia 3" immediately deleted the relevant activities and issued a clarification announcement, indicating that the lottery was only to give back to old users. On April 17, 2023, Jewel sued three main companies related to "Tianxia 3" on the grounds of unfair competition, and the first-instance public trial was held in the Hangzhou Binjiang District People's Court.

The court found that the defendant NetEase won the case and rejected all claims including Jewell’s 2.05 million compensation.

It is reported that the court analyzed and judged the focus of the case one by one on whether the defendant’s behavior constituted unfair competition, and finally determined that All the alleged acts of the defendant "Tianxia 3" did not constitute unfair competition, and all litigation claims including Jewell's 2.05 million yuan claim were dismissed.

1. Lottery reposting on Weibo is a common activity, and it is not easy to cause confusion and misunderstanding.

In response to the "Tianxia 3" advocated by Jay Will, the event will be held in July 2023 to give away Jay Chou's new album to players. , without official authorization, is an act of unfair competition. The court found that reposting lottery draws on Weibo is a common activity. A large number of social media accounts hold activities to repost Jay Chou's albums or concert tickets. It is not easy for the public to misunderstand that the lottery party and Jay Chou have specific endorsements, etc. relation.

Multiple games release lottery activities for Jay Chou's new album

2. "Game props" are actually "album redemption vouchers" and have no traffic diversion or profit-making nature

At the same time, the court also rejected Jewell’s claim that “Tian Xia 3” used elements from Jay Chou’s new album in the game to make them into game props for sale. The court determined that the "game props" were only "vouchers" for album redemption, and the activity was only open to experienced game players above level 20. It did not have the nature of attracting new users or making profits, and did not constitute unfair competition.

3. The public account publishing "Blue and White Porcelain" played by players does not constitute unfair competition

Jewell also proposed in the lawsuit that the use of Jay Chou's musical works in the WeChat public account article published by "Tianxia 3" on March 6, 2022 is also an infringement. In this regard, the court pointed out that the mention of "Blue and White Porcelain" on the WeChat public account had a weak connection with other behaviors involved in the case and was an independent act. In this case, the two plaintiffs clearly gave up their claims of copyright infringement and requested protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. However, even if evaluated according to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the song is played by gamers and the lyrics and music are widely known, so it is difficult to identify the copyright infringement. The behavior undermines the order of fair competition and does not constitute unfair competition.

4. Reasonable use of Jay Chou’s name in Weibo copywriting is not unfair competition

The court determined that from the perspective of the purpose of the behavior, the use of Jay Chou’s name in the lottery Weibo by “Tianxia 3” was a fair use. It was specifying that the prize was Jay Chou's new album. In addition, judging from the results of the behavior, the plaintiff did not prove any damage. The judgment of the relevant public can distinguish these activities as interactive behaviors between businesses and consumers, so the above behaviors do not constitute unfair competition.

Experts say we should be wary of the abuse of unfair competition laws to avoid wasting judicial resources

The litigation case between Jewel and NetEase's "Tianxia 3" has also triggered many legal experts and scholars to discuss how to determine whether unfair competition is unfair. Fair competition behavior, how to avoid excessive use of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" to protect rights, resulting in a waste of judicial resources and other issues of concern and discussion.

"With the continuous development of legislation and judicial practice, the subjects of unfair competition are no longer limited to operators in the same industry, but this has also resulted in the current situation of 'very busy anti-law'." Guangdong Zhuojian Law Firm Gao Jiyuan, secretary-general of the Intellectual Property Department and Professional Committee and member of the Legal Committee of the Shenzhen E-Sports Industry Association, said that under such circumstances, the determination of unfair competition requires a comprehensive and prudent assessment from multiple aspects, and unfair competition cannot be simply regarded as unfair competition. It is directly equated with "hotness". It is necessary to evaluate whether the behavior itself is unfair, whether it violates recognized business ethics and principles of good faith, and whether it misleads consumers into thinking that there is a specific relationship between the two parties such as endorsement and cooperation. It is also necessary to look at the results of the behavior, whether it damages the Whether the fair competition order in the market harms the actual interests of other operators and consumers.

At the same time, Gao Jiyuan reminded that more caution is needed when applying the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. “The Anti-Unfair Competition Law should become the lubricant of the business society and the glue for the laws of various departments of intellectual property, rather than a universal card for export.” He believes that if a business behavior is covered by the Copyright Law and the Trademark Law, "If it does not constitute an infringement within the legal framework such as "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" and does not violate the specific provisions of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law", there is no need to forcibly expand the application of principled provisions, resulting in a waste of judicial resources, and the market can adjust itself, it should be left to Only market solutions will be more conducive to healthy competition and economic development.

The above is the detailed content of The first trial of Jay Chou's case against NetEase for unfair competition has ended. NetEase won the case and will be heard on Tuesday next week.. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!