On the afternoon of April 17, the second-instance case of unfair competition between "Mango TV" and "Blocking Elf" automatically skipping APP opening screen advertisements was openly heard in Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. More than 30 media and platforms, including the IP video account, broadcast the whole process.
原题 | “芒果TV”起诉“拦精灵”不正当竞争案，二审胜诉
Source | Information Bureau of the Supreme People's Court
Author | Yu Yaru
Edit | Bruce
On the afternoon of April 17, the second-instance case of unfair competition between "Mango TV" and "Blocking Elf" automatically skipping APP opening screen advertisements was openly heard in Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The live broadcast was jointly produced by the Information Bureau of the Supreme People's Court, the "Trial Scene" column of the Social and Legal Channel of China Central Radio and Television, the Beijing High People's Court, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
In the second instance, the appellant, Yan Gao Jiutai Company, argued that it was the user's legal right to turn off the splash screen ad and choose how to better achieve one-click closure, and that the "Stop Genie" only responded to the normal needs of the user. The business model of splash screen advertising should not be protected, and the skipping function of the "Block Genie" software does not belong to the technical means of "hindering or destroying", nor does it affect the normal operation of the "Mango TV" software, so it is not an act of unfair competition.
The appellee, Hunan Happy Sunshine Company, argued that "Mango TV" had provided users with the option to skip advertisements, and that its legitimate and legitimate network services should be protected by law, and that if products such as "Blocking Elf" were allowed to interfere with advertising, it would inevitably cause "Mango TV" and other video websites to lack advertising revenue, which would then affect the procurement of copyrights, and ultimately damage the interests of users and society, so it requested the court to reject Yangao Jiutai's appeal request in accordance with the law.
During the trial, the two sides fully elaborated and debated on four key issues, including whether the Appellee had competitive interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in this case, whether the alleged acts carried out by the "Blocking Genie" software hindered the normal operation of the network products or services legally provided by the Appellee, whether the alleged infringement was justified, and whether the amount of compensation determined by the court of first instance was appropriate.
In the end, the court of second instance held that the "Blocking Genie" software actually blocked the splash screen advertising page legally provided by the Appellee, rather than just using technical means to achieve the "skip" operation. This kind of blocking undermines the Appellee's way of placing and skipping splash ads when providing network services in accordance with the law, and at the same time affects the effect of advertising, and then makes it impossible for the Appellee to promote advertising content for advertising users through splash ads and obtain advertising revenues accordingly, which essentially damages the Appellee's business interests and impairs its market competitive advantage, constituting an act of unfair competition as provided for in Article 12, Paragraph 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Beijing Yangao Jiutai Company's appeal request could not be sustained, and should be rejected and the first-instance judgment should be upheld.
During the live broadcast, Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, and Wang Xiaolei, host of China Central Radio and Television, answered questions from netizens together. Zhu Wei said that the court's judgment is not a "one-size-fits-all", but the result of comprehensive consideration, users can directly click to jump to the splash screen ad, does not mean that the blocking software can directly jump instead of the user, both parties should abide by the boundaries of behavior, only in this way can we better protect intellectual property rights and protect innovation. In addition, in view of the frequent pushing, jumping, and difficult to close the advertisements on some platforms, Zhu Wei reminded that the behavior of splash screen advertising itself should be legal, and users should be able to close it with one click, so as to better safeguard the rights and interests of consumers and promote the long-term development of the platform.
(This article only represents the author's point of view and does not represent the position of intellectual property)
Image Source | China Central Radio and Television Social and Law Channel, Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Intellectual Property Power Video Account