The second instance verdict of Jay Chou's lawsuit against NetEase's "Tianxia 3" for unfair competition has been released.
Recently, the second instance verdict of the lawsuit filed by Jay Chou and JVR Music Co., Ltd. (referred to as "JVR") against Guangzhou NetEase Computer System Co., Ltd. and other related parties was announced. The judgment shows that the second instance court upheld the original judgment of the first instance, found that the reasons for Jay Chou and Jay Chou's appeal were not valid, and rejected all claims for compensation of 2.05 million yuan and other lawsuits.
The court found that the hot search topics, entries, and promotional reports related to Jay Chou's new album are extremely common, and the behavior of "Tianxia 3" Weibo self funded forwarding lottery and other feedback to players has no profit-making nature, does not violate the principles of integrity and business ethics, and is difficult to make the public associate Jay Chou with the game through endorsement, authorization, etc. Therefore, the accused behavior of "Tianxia 3" does not constitute unfair competition.
In July 2022, Jay Chou released his new album "The Greatest Work" after a six-year hiatus, triggering a wave of digital album giveaways through online lotteries. Multiple game products such as "Tianxia 3" spontaneously organized Weibo lottery activities to give back to users.
On July 11, 2022, Jay Chou announced that legal measures would be taken against the unauthorized gift of Jay Chou's new album and concert tickets by "Tianxia 3".
After the announcement was released, "Tianxia 3" immediately deleted the relevant activities and issued a clarification notice, indicating that the lottery activity was only for giving back to old users.
On April 17, 2023, JVR sued three main companies related to "Tianxia 3" on the grounds of unfair competition, and the case was publicly tried in the first instance at the Binjiang District People's Court in Hangzhou.
Jieweifang believes that NetEase's above-mentioned behavior constitutes unfair competition by taking advantage of Jay Chou's super high popularity, the super high popularity of his new album, and the widespread dissemination of his music works to attract game traffic and increase the ultimate profit of game users. He demands that NetEase publicly publish a statement and compensate for economic losses of 2 million yuan and reasonable rights protection expenses of 50000 yuan.
On March 19, 2024, information related to "Jay Chou's first instance lawsuit against NetEase" exploded on the hot search list, ranking first on the hot search list.
It is reported that in the first instance, the court analyzed and judged the focus of the case on whether the defendant's behavior constituted unfair competition, and ultimately determined that all the accused behaviors of the defendant "Tianxia 3" did not constitute unfair competition, and rejected all litigation requests such as the claim of 2.05 million yuan from Jieweier.
According to the judgment obtained by the reporter, the second trial found that Jay Chou and JVR failed to provide evidence to prove that NetEase and NetEase gained competitive benefits through the above-mentioned actions, or seized the economic benefits generated by Jay Chou and JVR through album releases and concerts. From the comments of relevant consumers on platforms such as Weibo, it can be seen that there is no corresponding association or confusion between the products and services provided by NetEase and NetEase Thunderfire and Jay Chou and JVR companies. Jay Chou, as a highly renowned public figure, should have a certain tolerance obligation towards the topics raised on the internet.
In addition, when Jay Chou releases his new album, hot search topics, entries, and promotional reports related to it are extremely common, and activities such as reposting, drawing prizes, and giving away albums are also quite common. Although NetEase and NetEase Thunderfire objectively used Jay Chou and his song titles, their actions did not violate recognized business ethics or principles of good faith. The self funded lottery and flash sale activities of "Tianxia 3" have a welfare nature and are non-profit activities. NetEase and NetEase Thunderfire do not directly profit from them, and the Jay Chou albums provided are genuine and do not infringe on consumer rights, which does not constitute unfair competition.
In addition, "Tianxia 3" has previously publicly clarified that there is no cooperation relationship between Jay Chou and JVR, and consumers will not associate Jay Chou with endorsement, authorization, or other relationships with the game. The second instance court ultimately ruled in favor of "Tianxia 3" and upheld the first instance judgment, rejecting the appeal. This ruling is the final verdict.
Regarding the verdict, Lawyer Jia Changwei, a partner at Beijing Jincheng Tongda (Shenzhen) Law Firm, stated that as public figures, especially well-known celebrities, it is very common and unavoidable for them to become public topics. Therefore, they should bear a certain degree of tolerance obligation. "The law does not explicitly prohibit the use or attachment of celebrity topics in normal business activities, and celebrities as public figures should allow others to initiate or participate in celebrity topics normally.
Jia Changwei believes that in cases involving celebrity related rights, the judiciary should respect industrial laws and meet the needs of social development. On the one hand, the court should support the rights holders to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, including the protection of reputation, privacy, and portrait rights, to ensure that celebrities can enjoy the same legal rights as ordinary citizens. On the other hand, the court should also prevent related lawsuits from being abused into 'commercial rights protection' and consuming judicial resources. In the case where the market can self regulate and resolve competition conflicts, the law should exercise restraint, avoid excessive intervention, prioritize the resolution of competition conflicts to market mechanisms, and avoid the improper expansion of the scope of unfair competition behavior recognition due to the abuse of general terms.