The Landmines in "Beating Competitors to a Pulp": An Analysis of the Judicial Practice of Comparative Advertising

Compared with advertising, as an extremely effective marketing tool, it is widely adopted by marketing teams in the fields of new energy vehicles and digital electronics. It can directly present the advantages of products to consumers, but it also comes with significant legal risks.

Chinese law does not absolutely ban contrastive advertising, but sets relatively strict limits for it, requiring that all comparisons must be based on a comprehensive, objective, sufficient and scientific basis, and any advertising behavior that deviates from this principle, It may violate Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law") on "false advertising" and Article 11 on "commercial defamation".

Judicial practice has shown that inappropriate contrastive advertising often constitutes false advertising or commercial defamation. When courts hear such cases, they conduct strict reviews from four dimensions: truthfulness and objectivity, fairness and comprehensiveness, scientific comparability, and the identifiability of competitors. In particular in the field of products involving technology and parameters, courts impose higher requirements on the scientific nature of the comparison methods, the objectivity of the data sources, and the consistency of the statistical criteria. In terms of damages, the plaintiffs' claims are usually high, but there is a significant disparity in the amounts ultimately awarded by the courts, which also shows the prudence of judicial discretion. When determining the amount of compensation at the court's discretion, it takes into account a variety of factors, including: the degree of subjective malice of the infringer, the nature, duration and extent of the infringement, the popularity of the infringed brand, the performance of the infringer after receiving the litigation materials, and the scale of its business, etc.To effectively avoid legal risks, it is recommended that businesses establish a mandatory internal review process involving marketing, technology and legal departments before publishing any contrastive marketing content. By conducting a pre-compliance review, ensure that all external publicity content is true, fair, scientific and well-documented, and reduce potential legal risks.

01 Legal Analysis

"A. Permissibility Principle: Conditional comparison"

China's legal regulations on contrastive advertising mainly include the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which do not absolutely prohibit contrastive advertising. This leaves legal space for operators to highlight the advantages of their products or services by comparing them with their competitors. However, such permission comes with stricter conditions attached. Courts have repeatedly emphasized in several cases the core principle that comparative advertising must follow: the information about the goods provided must be comprehensive, objective and adequate. The principle requires advertisers not to merely extract partial information that is in their favor, but to present a complete, unbiased "panorama" to the public. In the case of "Zhejiang Feierkang Communication Technology Co., Ltd. v. Avago Semiconductor Technology (Shanghai) Co., LTD." [1], the court clearly pointed out that product comparison promotion lacking authenticity and completeness would mislead the relevant public and cause damage to the reputation of competitors, thus constituting unfair competition. Again, in the case of "Markor Home v. Baichuan Times" [2], the court reaffirmed that when it comes to comparisons related to other market competitors, economic ethics and the principle of caution in words and actions should be adhered to, information such as data sources, comparison methods, and comparison benchmarks should be fully disclosed, and as much relevant information and background materials as possible should be made public to guide the audience to understand correctly. This shows that the role of the judiciary is not to prohibit comparisons, but to strictly supervise the fairness and authenticity of such comparisons, ensuring that they serve consumers' right to know rather than mislead them.

"B. Core Regulations: False Advertising and Commercial Defamation"

At present, the legal risks of comparative advertising are mainly focused on the two core articles of the 2019 version of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, namely Article 8 and Article 11, which together form the dual legal pillars regulating such behavior.

1. Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law: False Advertising

"Business operators shall not make false or misleading commercial publicity about the performance, function, quality, sales status, user reviews, honors received, etc. of their goods to deceive or mislead consumers."

In the context of comparative advertising, even if the content of the advertisement is about a competitor, if the advertiser elevates its own product through unfair comparison, thereby causing consumers to have a wrong understanding of the true situation of the advertiser's own product, it constitutes the act prohibited by this provision. For example, in "Chongqing Midea v. Chongqing Gree" [3] Midea's advertising slogan "All DC is better than 1 Hertz, why?" For failing to provide sufficient factual evidence to support its conclusion, the court ruled that it was a one-sided comparison of inverter air conditioners, which was sufficient to cause misunderstanding among the relevant public and constituted false advertising.

2. Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law: Commercial Defamation

"Business operators shall not fabricate or disseminate false or misleading information to damage the business reputation or product reputation of their competitors."

This provision is directly aimed at acts that harm competitors. The red line of commercial defamation is crossed when a contrast advertisement leads consumers to have a negative opinion of a competitor's product or brand by fabricating facts, quoting one- sidedness, or making distorted statements. For example, in the case of Cixi Gongniu Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Pinsheng Company [4], Pinsheng used words such as "recycled plastic, copper wire welding, mostly no overload protection device, no USB interface" to describe Gongniu power strips by disassembling and comparing them, and was found by the court to have spread false facts and damaged Gongniu Company's business reputation and product reputation. It constitutes commercial defamation. In the case of "Chengdu Jinkaijia Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Qishangtong Technology Co., LTD." [5], the defendant, as a competitor in the same industry, published negative statements on its website such as "live800 rental version is not as stable in performance as we do", with the intention of highlighting the advantages of its own products by belittling the plaintiff without any direct basis, It was found by the court to have fabricated and spread false facts, constituting commercial defamation.

"C. Concurrence of causes of action: A double-edged sword"

An improper contrastive advertisement often violates both Article 8 and Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In the judgment of "Markor Home v. Baichuan Times", the court held that "in a comparative advertisement, making a direct, obvious and definite comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of similar products will inevitably affect the public evaluation of the products listed as the inferior party, and may constitute both false advertising and commercial defamation."

The inherent relevance of this legal logic poses a double risk to advertisers. When an advertiser claims, "My product A is superior to competitor's product B in some performance," this act is legally broken down into two separate statements:

1. Statement to consumers

"My product A has' superior performance over B '." If this claim lacks factual basis, it misleads consumers' perception of Product A and constitutes false advertising against the advertiser's own product (in violation of Article 8).

2. Statements about competitors

"Competitor's product B is inferior to my product A in some performance." The statement directly gave a negative assessment of the competitor's product reputation. If the evaluation is based on unfair,incomplete or unscientific comparisons, it constitutes commercial defamation of the competitor (in violation of Article 11).

In "Midea v. TCL Zhongshan" [6], TCL, through unscientific on-site testing during a live broadcast, concluded that "TCL Soft Wind Air Conditioner wins completely" and used "The competitor has no wind, is the cooling effect still there?" "Not even as good as a fan" and other derogatory words. The court ultimately ruled that this one-sided comparison not only unjustly elevated its own product, constituting false advertising, but also tarnished Midea's product reputation, constituting commercial defamation. This double risk means that companies must review from two dimensions when planning comparative advertisements. Negligence in either dimension could result in liability under both legal provisions. Therefore, any contrastive statement must be subject to strict internal scrutiny to ensure that it neither misleads consumers nor unfairly damages the reputation of competitors.

02 Judicial Review: The four Pillars of Legitimate Comparison

When courts determine whether a comparative advertisement is legal, they do not make arbitrary value judgments but rely on a series of legal standards. Through the analysis of multiple cases, four core pillars of judicial review can be summarized: authenticity and objectivity, fairness and comprehensiveness, scientific comparability, and the identifiability of competitors. The absence of any one of these pillars could lead to the collapse of the legitimacy basis of the entire comparative advertising campaign.

"A. Pillar One: Authenticity and Objectivity"

This is not only the most fundamental and primary principle of contrastive advertising, but also the most core principle of the advertising industry. All the information presented in the advertisement, whether about its own product or that of a competitor, must be true and accurate. However, the court's review may go beyond literal truthfulness and extend into the overall effect of the information conveyed. Even if the facts cited are true in themselves, they can still be found illegal if a misleading impression is created through specific arrangement, alteration, wording, or context.

In the case of "Xinjiang Snow Mountain Orchard Food Co., Ltd. v. Xi 'an Rainbow Planet Culture Technology Co., LTD." [7], the defendant pointed out in his short video that the ingredient list of one of the plaintiff's products indicated "plant carbon black", which was a legally used food additive, and this fact itself was true. But the defendant immediately commented, "that is to say his color is actually dyed," suggesting that the product color is not natural and may even be unsafe, thus packaging a neutral fact as a negative message and actually exploiting and reinforcing consumers' aversion to food additives. By alluding to the "unnatural" and "unhealthy" quality comparative disadvantage of the target product, it led consumers to believe that their product was "solid" safer than others, misleading them. The court held that the act went beyond the realm of objective statements and constituted commercial defamation. In the "Clere Brand Cream case" [8], the defendant claimed in a promotional video that its product had added "extract of wirella" more than the plaintiff's product, but failed to provide evidence that the product contained that ingredient. Therefore, the court determined that this part of the promotional content was untrue and constituted false advertising. The case clearly shows that objectivity requires advertisers not only to ensure the authenticity of every data point, but also to ensure that the presentation is neutral and fair, and not to influence consumers' judgment through implication, inducement or distorted interpretation.

"B. Pillar Two: Fairness and Comprehensiveness"

This is the core weapon that the court uses to combat unfair comparisons in the "Tian Ji horse racing" style. Article 17 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China [9] explicitly prohibits "one-sided promotion or comparison of goods", that is, advertisers cannot selectively highlight the advantages of their own products while deliberately ignoring or concealing key information that competitors may have an advantage or that both sides may be on par. The comparison must be fair and comprehensive.

In the "Midea v. TCL Zhongshan" case, the defendant concluded "good cooling effect" and "complete victory" based solely on self-controlled and unscientific wind speed tests during a live broadcast, completely ignoring other important indicators for measuring air conditioning performance such as energy efficiency, noise, and overall comfort, and was identified by the court as a typical one-sided comparison. In "Chengdu Jinkaijia v. Beijing Qishangtong", the defendant used a "highly purposeful list comparison method" and made negative statements such as "live800 was promoted a lot, and the advertising expenses needed to be paid by the customers, so the price positioning was relatively high" without any direct basis, with the intention of highlighting the advantages of its own products by belittling the plaintiff. This comparison method was found by the court to be improper.

In addition, the court has also taken a negative stance on comparison methods that mainly show the "flaws" of competitors. In the case of Cixi Gongniu Electrical Appliance v. Pinsheng Company, the defendant disassembled the Gongniu power strip and concentratedly displayed its so-called "defects". The court held that, regardless of whether these "defects" objectively exist or not, this direct comparison method, which mainly spreads the defects of competitors, is intended in itself to mislead the public into misunderstanding the actual quality of the two, and therefore constitutes commercial defamation.

Likewise, the use of absolute negative terms is also very risky. In the case of "Chengdu Smiling Technology Co., Ltd. v. Huatai Brand Management (Ningbo) Co., LTD." [10], the defendant claimed in the comparative advertisement that the competitor's products "silicone washing bags are prone to damage when washed at high temperatures", "silicone is prone to deformation and damage clothes when washed with a brush", "can only wash one bag at a time", "cannot wash towels or baby clothes", "have no bucket cleaning function and can only be cleaned manually". The court held that the use of absolute words such as "none" and "only" exaggerated the deficiency of the function, which could easily lead consumers to wrongly associate the product with serious defects and was misleading information.

In the "Clere brand Cream case", the defendant, who was once a distributor of the plaintiff, promoted its product as a "new upgraded version" of the plaintiff's product when selling competing products, causing consumers to mistakenly believe that the two products were in a relationship of "old version" and "new version", resulting in confusion and misidentification. The court found that the act of using consumers' existing knowledge for misleading promotion constituted false advertising.

Therefore, fairness and comprehensiveness require advertisers to stand on the fair side of an industry when making comparisons, choosing representative core indicators that consumers generally care about for a comprehensive comparison, rather than creating false advantages through information tailoring and language exaggeration.

"C Pillar Three: Scientific comparability"

As market competition enters the deep waters of technology, courts' scrutiny of technical comparison advertisements has become increasingly refined and specialized, and the principle of "scientific comparability" has emerged. This means that not only do the conclusions of comparisons need to be based, but the process by which they are drawn - that is, the methods of data collection and analysis - must themselves be scientific and credible.

In the case of "Unfair Competition between a certain telecommunications group Zhejiang Company and a certain technology (Jinan) company" [11], the defendant, as a professional speed testing website, published an advertisement claiming that "telecom network speed exceeded mobile network speed by 58.95%". The court did not simply accept or deny the data, but rather examined the process of its generation and established three criteria for judging the comparability of the data:

1. Objectivity of the data source

The court noted that there are many factors influencing Internet speed. The defendant failed to distinguish between different access methods such as wired and wireless when collecting the data, resulting in a bias in the sample itself and an inability to truly reflect the actual rates of telecom and mobile Internet speeds.

2. Consistency of data statistics and scientificity of data calculation methods

The defendant, knowing that the contracted bandwidth of different users would significantly affect the speed test results, did not distinguish the contracted bandwidth but merely calculated the arithmetic average based on the actual speed test results of the users. This "apple versus orange" comparison itself does not conform to the principle of comparability for contrastive analysis.

This principle was further confirmed in the case of Midea v. TCL Zhongshan. The court denied the validity of the live test conducted by TCL on the grounds that the test was carried out under the unilateral control of the defendant, key information such as the test environment and the product selection process was not disclosed, and the entire process lacked objectivity and scientificity.

For any comparison involving performance and technical indicators, without a rigorous, transparent, reproducible and preferably verified by an independent third party scientific methodology, any statement will be vulnerable to judicial review. This requires companies to introduce compliance thinking from the product development and testing stages to ensure that all data used for marketing can stand up to legal scrutiny.

"D. Pillar Four: Competitor Identifiability"

The composition of commercial defamation does not require that a competitor be named in the advertisement. The law is concerned with whether, in the perception of the relevant public, the advertisement can clearly point to one or more specific competitors. If the directionality is clear, even if a vague or indirect reference is used, it still constitutes a "designation" in the legal sense.

Courts have recognized a variety of indirect identifications in practice:

1. Use nicknames or suggestive words

In the Bull case, the defendant used "a certain bull" to refer to "Bull", and the court held that based on the popularity of the Bull brand in the market, consumers were sufficient to identify the reference. In the TCL air conditioning case, the repeated use of the term "rival" was enough to bring consumers to think of its main rival Midea in the context of the market environment and live-streaming content at that time.

2. Make use of unique product features or technical names

In the Smiley Face Technology washing machine case, the "silicone washing bag" mentioned in the defendant's advertisement was a unique core feature of the plaintiff's "Juefei" brand washing machine, and the court thus determined that the advertisement was explicitly directed at the plaintiff's product. Likewise, in the case of "Unfair Competition Dispute between Kerite Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhongshan Wenyu Optoelectronic Technology Co., LTD." [12], the defendant attacked the "caseless flying saucer lamp", and the plaintiff happened to be the main user of the patented technology. The court determined that this attack targeting the technical features of the product was clearly targeted.

3. Through visual elements (packaging, appearance, etc.)

In the "Shanghai Mevnuo Collagen case" [13], the defendant represented a product as a "shoddy product" in a television program, although not mentioning the brand, but giving a 5-second close-up shot of the product's packaging. After comparison, the court found that the packaging was highly consistent with the plaintiff's product in terms of overall appearance and the details of the label, which was sufficient for consumers to identify and thus constituted directionality. In the "Clere brand Cream case", the defendant used a silhouette in the promotional image that was consistent with the shape of the plaintiff's product for comparison, which was also found to have definite directionality.

These cases show that it is not feasible to try to circumvent legal liability by "playing on the edge" (such as using "a certain brand", "competitor" or not naming but showing the product). Courts will use "the general attention of the relevant public" as a criterion and take into account factors such as market context, product features, and context to determine whether there is a clear directionality. Once the directionality is established, the fairness and authenticity of the advertising content will be subject to a comprehensive judicial review.

03 Consequences of Violation: A Deep Analysis of Court Compensation Considerations

Once a comparative advertisement is found to constitute unfair competition, the infringer may face a series of legal responsibilities such as stopping the infringement, eliminating the influence and compensating for the losses. Among them, the determination of damages is the focus that enterprises pay the most attention to. By analyzing the relevant case law, it can be found that courts follow a clear legal framework and a series of specific discretionary considerations when determining the amount of compensation.

"A. Overview of Compensation Amounts: The huge Gap between 'Claims' and' Judgments'"

A review of the relevant cases reveals a common phenomenon: there is a huge gap between the amount of compensation claimed by the plaintiff and the amount ultimately supported by the court. For example:

• In the case of Feierkang v. Anwargao, the plaintiff claimed more than 5.61 million yuan, and the court awarded 300,000 yuan in damages.

• In the case of Bulls v. Pinsheng, the plaintiff claimed 3.2 million yuan, and the court ruled that the plaintiff should pay 1 million yuan in compensation.

• In Midea v. TCL, the plaintiff claimed 3 million yuan and the court awarded 300,000 yuan in damages.

• In Chengdu Jinkaijia v. Beijing Qishangtong, the plaintiff claimed 180,000 yuan and the court awarded 30,000 yuan in damages.

This phenomenon reveals two key points. First, the plaintiff often sets higher claims, which is a common litigation strategy. Secondly, the court is not necessarily swayed by the plaintiff's claim amount, but makes an independent judgment strictly based on the law and the facts of the case. This means that although the potential litigation risks faced by enterprises may be high, the actual risk of compensation is usually within a relatively controllable range. But this range is still considerable for major cases, such as the "Markor Home v. Baichuan Times case" which awarded up to 4.5 million yuan in damages. Of course, if the amount claimed by the plaintiff is low in itself, it can also be fully supported by the court, such as in the "Clere brand cream case" where the plaintiff claimed 30,000 yuan and ultimately received full support from the court.

"B. Legal Framework for the Calculation of compensation"

Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Article 23 of its judicial interpretations provide for the calculation of damages in a logical hierarchy similar to that of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, following a clear sequence:

1. The actual losses suffered by the infringed operator as a result of the infringement

This is the preferred way of calculation, but plaintiffs often find it difficult to provide evidence that there is a direct, sole causal relationship between their profit decline or advertising expenditure and the defendant's infringement.

2. Profits made by the infringer from the infringement

This is a secondary option. However, it is equally difficult to ask the defendant to provide its internal, precise profit data directly related to the infringement, and even requesting a third-party audit from the court may not yield the desired results.

3. Statutory damages/Discretionary damages

When it is difficult to determine either of the two methods at present, the people's court shall award compensation of up to five million yuan to the infringer based on the circumstances of the infringement, which is also the common practice in most cases at present.

In cases of unfair competition caused by comparative advertising, due to the complexity of sales influencing factors, it is extremely difficult to prove "actual losses" and "profits from infringement". As a result, the vast majority of cases ended up in the third way, where the amount of compensation was "determined at the court's discretion". In the case of Chongqing Midea v. Chongqing Gree, the court clearly stated that since neither party provided valid evidence to prove the loss or gain, the amount of compensation was determined at the court's discretion based on the circumstances of the case.

"C. Key considerations Affecting the amount of compensation"

The court's "discretionary determination" is not an arbitrary decision but is based on a comprehensive assessment of a range of objective factors. These factors together form the balance that determines the final amount of compensation. The following is a systematic overview of these key factors:

1. The infringer's subjective malice and business model

The court will examine whether the improper comparison is an isolated mistake or a core and systematic marketing strategy of the defendant. If the defendant's business model relies heavily on attracting customers through one-sided comparisons with well-known brands, this will be regarded as highly subjective malice and an important factor in increasing compensation. For example, in the case of "Markor Home v. Baichuan Times", the court clearly pointed out that the main marketing strategy of the "Baichuan Home" brand was its price advantage, and the one-sided price comparison behavior involved in the case had an "extremely significant impact" on its profits, which was the key reason for the high compensation.

2. The nature, duration and extent of the infringement

Nature refers to the severity of the defamatory words (such as "not even as good as a fan"); Duration refers to the duration of the advertisement; The reach refers to the breadth (national media vs. local newspapers) and depth (online views, reviewability, number of offline stores) of the media. The worse the behavior, the longer it lasts, and the wider the coverage, the higher the compensation. In the case of Midea v. TCL, the court took into account the fact that the live stream had more than 45,000 viewers and supported replay, and had a wide range of influence. In both "Midea v. Gree" and "Meike Home v. Baichuan Times", the court explicitly took "the duration, means and scope of infringement" as well as "the long duration and wide influence of the act" as the basis for discretionary compensation.

3. The popularity and goodwill value of the infringed brand Commercial defamation of a well-known trademark can cause much more damage to goodwill than to an emerging or niche brand. The higher the market position and reputation of the infringed brand, the higher the amount of compensation supported by the court, because a higher amount is needed to make up for the loss of its goodwill. In the cases of "Markor Home v. Baichuan Times" and "Chongqing Midea v. Chongqing Gree", the courts explicitly took the popularity of the infringed brand as an important consideration when determining the amount of compensation.

4. The scale of the infringer's business and the profits from the infringement

The size and market influence of the infringing enterprise are also considered by the court. A large and well-resourcated company should have a more complete compliance system, and its illegal acts have a greater social impact, and therefore may face harsher punitive damages. In the case of "Markor Home v. Baichuan Times", the court took into account "the scale of the defendant's business" in its judgment. At the same time, the sales volume and profit margin of the infringing products were also important factors considered by the court.

5. Reasonable expenses for rights protection

Reasonable expenses paid by the infringed party to stop the infringement, such as legal fees, notarization fees, investigation and evidence collection fees, etc., are usually supported by the court and included in the total compensation amount. For example, in the "Clere brand Cream case", the court ruled explicitly in favor of the plaintiff's claims for attorneys' fees and notarization fees. Likewise, in the Coret case, it was clearly stated that "reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement" were included in the compensation awarded.

These factors clearly reveal the inherent logic of the court's discretion in determining the amount of compensation. It goes beyond simple legal provisions and provides businesses with a quantifiable risk assessment tool. When planning any contrastive advertising campaign, corporate legal and marketing teams can refer to this list to assess potential exposures item by item and make more informed business decisions.

04 Conclusions

Contrastive advertising is a sharp double-edged sword in the Chinese market. It is legally permitted but comes with very strict conditions. If operators can adhere to the principles of truthfulness, objectivity, comprehensiveness, fairness and science, they can effectively use it to convey value to consumers; Conversely, any form of one-sided, misleading or derogatory comparison will expose enterprises to double legal actions for false advertising and commercial defamation, as well as potentially millions of dollars in economic compensation and loss of goodwill.

A clear trend in judicial practice points to more rigorous scrutiny of advertising content, particularly technical claims. Courts are no longer content with superficial factual statements but delve deeper into the methodology behind the data. This requires businesses to fundamentally shift their marketing mindset and embed legal compliance in every aspect of their marketing activities rather than remedy it after the fact. Based on this, we propose the following core strategic recommendations: Establish a mandatory, cross-departmental marketing content review process. All marketing materials planned to be released that involve comparisons with competitors (including but not limited to product brochures, soft articles, live scripts, social media posts, product detail pages, etc.) should go through the following three checkpoints of review before being released:

1. Marketing team

Be responsible for generating ideas and initially building content to ensure clear marketing goals.

2. Technical/Product team

Be responsible for verifying one by one all factual and technical statements related to product performance, specifications, materials, processes, etc., to ensure their absolute truth and accuracy, and provide complete and scientific test data and methodological support for all performance comparisons.

3. Legal/Compliance team

Conduct a final legal risk assessment. The team should conduct a comprehensive review of the overall fairness of the marketing content, the rigor of the wording, the presentation of the data, etc., in accordance with the "Four Pillars" review criteria provided in this report. At the same time, assess the potential legal risk level of the marketing campaign in combination with the consideration of damages, and have the right of veto.

In conclusion, in the face of an increasingly strict judicial regulatory environment, businesses must recognize that investing in pre-emptive legal compliance construction is far more cost-effective than dealing with lawsuits, paying huge reparations, and restoring damaged brand reputations after the fact. A sound internal review mechanism is a relatively reliable safety net for businesses when they use the powerful tool of contrast advertising.

Footnote:

[1]. Zhejiang Feierkang Communication Technology Co., ltd. v. Anhua Gao Semiconductor Technology (Shanghai) Co., LTD. (2013) Hu Yi Zhong Min Wu (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 194

[2] Mek International Home Products Co., Ltd. v. Baichuan Times (Beijing) Trading Co., LTD., First instance case number (2021) Jing 0105 Min Chu 42457, Second instance case number (2022) Jing 73 Min Zhong 4030

[3] Chongqing Midea Refrigeration Products Sales Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing Minghui Gree Electric Appliances Sales Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case (2012) Yu Wu Zhong Fa Min Zhong Zi No. 04749

[4] Cixi Gongniu Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Pinsheng Company, (2017) Hu 0110 Min Chu 3376

[5] Chengdu Jinkaijia v. Beijing Qishangtong case, (2016) Sichuan 0191 Min Chu 3288

[6] Midea v. TCL Zhongshan Company, (2020) Yue 0604 Min Chu 11072

[7] Xinjiang Xueshan Guoyuan Food Co., Ltd. v. Xi 'an Rainbow Planet Culture and Technology Co., LTD. (2021) Shaanxi Civil Appeal No. 392

[8] Clere brand Cream case, (2024) Hu 0117 Min Chu 22307

[9] Judicial Interpretation [2022] No. 9

[10]. Chengdu Smiley Technology Co., Ltd. v. Huatai Brand Management (Ningbo) Co., LTD. (2021) Sichuan 0193 Min Chu 8969

[11]. Unfair Competition case between a certain Communications group Zhejiang Company and a certain Technology (Jinan) Company,(2021) Zhejiang 01 Min Zhong 5200

[12]. Case of Unfair Competition Dispute between Jiangmen Jianghai Keruite Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhongshan Wenyu Optoelectronic Technology Co., LTD., (2021) Yue 20 Min Zhong No. 4214

[13] Shanghai Meifunuo Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Hunan Happy Taobao Culture Communication Co., LTD., Hunan Qianjin Health Care Workshop Health Products Co., LTD., He Yi Information Technology (Beijing) Co., LTD., Shanghai Quan Tudou Network Technology Co., LTD., Shanghai Quan Tudou Culture Communication Co., LTD. Unfair Competition Dispute (2013) Pu Min SAN (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 764