NEWS

新闻动态

了解华诚最新动态与行业资讯

返回列表

Honors & Awards | Watson & Band Victory Selected by Supreme People’s Court as 2025 Model Case for Anti-Unfair Competition

Thu Sep 11 14:45:00 CST 2025 发布人:Editor

A high-profile commercial dispute represented by Watson & Band Senior Partner Sijie Zhang has been selected by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) as one of the "Top 8 Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of 2025."

The list, released on September 8 during the "2025 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week," serves to guide judicial standards nationwide. Watson & Band’s victory was highlighted as Case No. 6, setting a critical precedent regarding the legal boundaries of aggressive marketing and commercial defamation.

  • The Case: "Shock the Tiger" Marketing Campaign

The dispute involved a leading automotive service platform (the Plaintiff, represented by Watson & Band) known for its "Tiger" trademark, and a major e-commerce giant (the Defendant).

The Defendant launched a promotional campaign titled "Zhen Hu Jia" (translating to "Shock the Tiger Price"). The campaign featured:

  • Visual Mimicry: Use of the Plaintiff’s distinctive "Tiger" font and imagery.

  • Defamatory Puns: Marketing slogans using wordplay on the character "Hu" (Tiger) to imply the Plaintiff’s services were "confusing" (Hu-Tu), "fooling people" (Hu-Nong), or deceptive.

  • Disparaging Content: Videos depicting a tiger character being physically knocked down.

  • The Verdict: 5 Million RMB in Damages

The court found that the Defendant’s campaign went beyond competitive pricing. By spreading misleading information that damaged the Plaintiff's business reputation, the actions constituted commercial defamation.

The Shanghai Minhang District People's Court (First Instance) ordered the Defendants to cease the infringement and pay RMB 5 million in damages and expenses—a significant sum in Chinese unfair competition litigation. This verdict was upheld in full by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court on appeal.

  • Why This Matters

The Supreme People’s Court selected this case to clarify the line between legitimate advertising and illegal commercial slander.

In the era of internet platform economies and livestreaming, this ruling serves as a warning: marketing campaigns that denigrate competitors through "creative" puns or misleading narratives are actionable violations of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.