I.Basic facts of the case
In 2002, Jin Yong (pen name of Louis Cha Leung-yung) granted Ming Ho Publications Co., Ltd. (“Ming Ho Publications”) an exclusive copyright license to use, including to adapt, his martial arts novels. In April 2013, Ming Ho Publications authorized Jin Yong to license to Perfect World (Beijing) Software Co., Ltd. (“Perfect World”) the right to adapt four of his martial arts novels into game software for mobile devices (the four novels are Legends of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, Heaven Sword and Dragon Sabre, and The Smiling Proud Wanderer, collectively, the “Disputed Novels”). Almost at the same time, Beijing Firevale Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Firevale”) developed a mobile game called “Dahua Jianghu,” which was subsequently renamed as “Tales of Kongfu Masters” (“Tales of Kongfu Masters” or the “Infringing Game”). In May 2013, Firevale signed a license agreement with Beijing Kunlun Lexiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Kunlun Lexiang”), agreeing that Kunlun Lexiang would be responsible for the upgrade and operation of the Infringing Game in Mainland China, Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and Taiwan region, South Korea and Southeast Asia. From July to August 2013, the Infringing Game was officially put into online operation, and the operation entities actually included Beijing Kunlun Tech Co., Ltd. (“Kunlun Tech”), an affiliate of Kunlun Lexiang, as well.
Ming Ho Publications and Perfect World alleged that the Infringing Game used a large number of specific characters, martial arts formations, scene settings, and other elements of the Disputed Novels, and that the above-mentioned game developers and operators used such elements in the adaptation to and operation of the Infringing Game without authorization, thus seriously infringing their adaptation right of the Disputed Novels and constituting unfair competition. Ming Ho Publications and Perfect World (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) jointly filed a lawsuit in April 2014 with the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court (or the “court of first instance”), requesting the court to order the above three companies (collectively the “Defendants”)[1] to cease the copyright infringement and unfair competition, compensate for losses of approximate RMB 100 million, make an apology (abandoned in the trial of first instance) and eliminate the impact. In July 2017, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court determined that the Defendants’ behavior did not infringe the adaptation right of the Disputed Novels, but constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance ruled that the Defendants shall assume joint and several liability for the Plaintiffs’ loss of RMB 16 million i.e. two times the copyright licensing fee of the four Disputed Novels and the Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses, and make an apology on their respective official website.
Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants objected and successively filed an appeal with the Higher People’s Court of Beijing (or the “court of second instance”).[2] On 18 December 2019, the Higher People’s Court of Beijing rendered a final judgment, determining infringement of the adaptation right of the Disputed Novels by the Infringing Game and upheld the amount of compensation and other decisions of the first instance judgment.
II.First-instance judgment
The core issues of this case were whether the Defendants’ acts constituted infringementof the adaptation right and how to determine the amount of damages.
As for the first core issue, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court held that Tales of Kongfu Masters did not constitute infringement of the adaptation right of the Disputed Novels on the grounds as follows: “The adapted works formed by exercising the adaptation right are new works with originality formed by developing and changing the original expression of the original works. Adapted works shall correspond to or match with the basic plot thread and main plot of the original works. A work that only uses a small amount of content or expression of the original work and as a whole cannot form a corresponding relationship with the original work, does not constitute an adapted work.” The court of first instance further held that, in this case, “the use of elements of the Disputed Novels in Tales of Kongfu Masters is mainly reflected in the characters’ names and their personality characteristics, weapons, martial arts moves, formations, scene settings, and so forth. From the perspective of storyline and plot thread, the most essential elements of adaptation, the Tales of Kongfu Masters does not contain enough specific expressions of a single Disputed Novel. And its plot settings corresponding to those of a single Disputed Novel do not reach a high volume or proportion. Nor do the plot settings corresponding to those of a single Disputed Novel contained in Tales of Kongfu Masters account for a sufficient proportion of such single Disputed Novel. Tales of Kongfu Masters does not use the basic expressions of any single Disputed Novel, and expressions of a single Disputed Novel does not account for a high proportion in the expressions of Tales of Kongfu Masters. So Tales of Kongfu Masters as a whole cannot form a corresponding relationship with any single Disputed Novel.” However, in the comparison of plots between the Infringing Game and the Disputed Novels, the game levels of the Infringing Game were deemed as its plots in the first-instance judgment, and only the contents of the game levels were compared with the plots of the Disputed Novels.
In short, the court of first instance denied the claim for infringement of the adaptation right on the grounds that there were not sufficient “plots” of the Infringing Game that are similar to the corresponding contents of the Disputed Novels, which was insufficient to determine the existence of substantial similarity between the Infringing Game and the Disputed Novels. However, the first instance judgment held that the Infringing Game improperly made use of the popularity of the Disputed Novels as well as the reputation of the Disputed Novels and Mr. Jin Yong, which would mislead the public to believe that the Infringing Game was related to the Disputed Novels and Mr. Jin Yong; such behaviour violated the principle of good faith and basic business ethics and constituted unfair competition.
With regard to the determination of the amount of damages, the court of first instance found out on the basis of preliminary evidence that the operating profits of the Infringing Game from August 2013 to March 2015 had reached RMB 170.23625 million, and the three Defendants refused to submit their financial books. The court of first instance held that it was difficult to determine the contribution rate of the Disputed Novels to the profits from the infringement of the Infringing Game.[3] Finally, the operating profits of the three Defendants were taken into account as a factor for statutory compensation, and the compensation amount of RMB 16 million was determined referring to the multiple of the copyright license fee of the Disputed Novels (the highest amount of compensation recorded in cases of the same category then).
III.Main standpoints of the appellants
(I)Standpoints on the adaptation right infringement
Novels are important literary works protected by the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (Copyright Law). Thus, it will be more appropriate and effective for a novel to seek protection from the Copyright Law than from the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (Anti-Unfair Competition Law) based on its popularity. This will contribute to a more standardized IP authorization market as well. As such, it is the Appellants’ most important appeal to request a revision of the judgment that the Infringing Game infringed the adaptation right of the Disputed Novels. In the second instance, the Appellants analyzed and stated in detail the respective expression characteristics of the Infringing Game and the Disputed Novels, and proposed that the comparison methods for determining infringement should conform to such characteristics, and that the use of the expression of the Disputed Novels in the Infringing Game should be re-compared accordingly. The specific opinions of the Appellants are as follows: The court of first instance decided that similar “plots” were proportionately small when comparing the Infringing Game and the Disputed Novels, which was insufficient to determine that the two constitute substantial similarity. The main reason was that the thought did not conform to the general rules for determining the infringement of the adaptation right or the characteristics of the Infringing Game or the specific adaptation in the case. Item 14, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Copyright Law provides: “Adaptation right, i.e. the right to adapt a work, thus creating a new work with originality.” Based on the generally accepted views in judicial practice, three factors should be taken into account to determine whether adaptation has occurred: 1. whether the adapted work has used the original expression of the original work; 2. whether the adapted work has its own original expression; and 3. the adapted work may be of the same genre as the original work or of different genres. Works of different genres have different characteristics, and possibly different forms of expression. Rules or methods of the comparison for infringement determination should be consistent with the characteristics and expression forms of the relevant works, otherwise the comparison conclusion may be biased. Therefore, with regard to the adaptation of novels to games, infringement comparison should be conducted based on the characteristics of the two genres to examine whether the game has used the original expression such as the characters and plots of the novels in its unique form (that is, the form of “cards”). In addition, the amount and proportion of infringement do not decide whether infringement may be established, but only affect the assumption of liability for infringement. Therefore, the first instance judgment that denied the infringement on the ground of insufficient proportion of infringement is against the rule of copyright protection, i.e. “where there is originality, there is copyright protection.” In a word, to examine whether the Infringing Game used the original expression of the Disputed Novels in the form of “cards,” the first step is to specify what is the original expression of the Disputed Novels protected by the Copyright Law, and then compare and determine whether the Infringing Game and the Disputed Novels are substantively similar based on the specific characteristics of the Infringing Game.
1.What is the original expression of the Disputed Novels?
The answer may vary in different cases of adaptation right infringement in relation to online games. Some believe that the character names in novels may be protected by the Copyright Law, while others obviously disagree. The court of first instance in this case even held that only the plot and thread of a novel constituted the original expression protected by the Copyright Law; and the Appellees defended that the individual characters, scenes, martial arts, weapons, formations, etc. in written works were not protected by the Copyright Law. So, what is the original expression of the Disputed Novels?
To answer this question, the Appellants believed that the issue should be firstly understood and judged from the perspective of literary to which the Disputed Novels belong. On the question of what are the basic elements of a novel, the critics and novelists at all times and in all countries have unanimous and complementary answers. Chinese writer Mao Dun (Shen Yanbing) stated in his article The Study of Characters that “but if we only look at the elements on the surface of a novel, the structure (i.e. the plot of the novel), characters (i.e. the people in the novel) and environment (i.e. the natural scenery, urban atmosphere, etc. in the novel) are the essential elements that attract our attention first.” In On Literature, the Soviet writer Gorky explained that “the third element of literature is the plot, that is, the connection, contradiction, sympathy, antipathy and general interrelation between character—the history of certain character, typical growth and composition.” Elizabeth Bowen, a famous British novel critic, stated in the British Novelists that the vivid characters, vivid plot and interest in interpersonal relationships were three elements of a novel. In a word, novel writers and critics believe that “the superficial elements of a novel” include characters, plot, environment, etc. It is worth mentioning that the “characters” in the elements do not refer to simple character names, but “lifelike and vivid characters,”i.e. full figures drawn by unique character names, distinctive personal characteristics, special life experiences, complicated character relationships, etc. The characters and plot are inseparable. The plot shapes the characters while the characters support the plot. Jin Yong’s preface in the Collection of Jin Yong’s Works is an introduction to his martial arts novels, but also explains his overall view on the specific creative elements of novels. He said that “novels are written for people to read. Contents of a novel are related to people. In a novel, the writer writes about the personalities and feelings of a person, several people, a group of people or tens of thousands of people. Their personalities and feelings are reflected in the contemporary environment, in their sequential encounters, and in the interactions and relationships between people… The greatest wish of a novel writer is to create some characters who can become lifelike and vivid people in readers’ mind.” Indeed, the famous characters in Jin Yong’s novels are the soul of his martial arts novels, and the elements such as plot and environment, or original expression are all created to support these vivid characters.
The Appellants thus claimed that the unique characters, plot and environment in a novel are the original expression of the novelist and that such elements may receive different degree of attention from novelists in their writing. The core original expression of the Disputed Novels focuses on the characters, who convey the information about the environment, plot and character relationship of Jin Yong’s martial arts world and show his great martial arts dream to the world. Elements such as Kungfu, accessories, formations and scenes of the Disputed Novels, either alone or in combination, also constitute the original expression of the Disputed Novels. These elements are often used to shape characters by providing conditions or creating opportunities for the expression of the characters’ unique experiences, personality characteristics (including preferences), Kungfu characteristics, etc.
In addition, the Appellants also observed in particular the general practice of obtaining a license for adaptation right in the game industry. The use and authorization of characters, plots and other elements in a novel are often specially provided in the authorization agreement for adaptation right in the game industry. The Appellants were of the opinion that the abovementioned general practice reflects to a great extent the understanding and recognition of the industry to the original expression of novels.
2.How to compare the Disputed Novels and the Infringing Game from the perspective of adaptation?
Due to the variety, novelty and even endlessness of online games, the determination of infringement upon adaptation right involving online games is complicated. It may vary greatly in specific forms of expression, preferences for original elements of the original work, and ways of using original expression of the original work depending on different types of online games. Without thorough consideration of these aspects, negligence of a small discrepancy when comparing with the original work may lead to an entirely different result for infringement determination. Therefore, it is essential to examine the specific characteristics of the Infringing Game and how it used the original expression of Disputed Novels.
Card games bear similarity with traditional cards (playing cards) in that 1) there are different suits (types) and different levels of cards; and 2) players follow certain rules of playing cards (or game rules), and different card groups have different point values (or power). Since the Infringing Game was based on cards, it is impossible to express thoughts or feelings in a large amount of text contents as novels. Therefore, when adapting novels to games, game developers use the original expression in the novels (such as characters, etc.) in form of cards, and diversified types of cards will reproduce the original expression, such as characters’ personalities, martial arts expertise, characters’ relationship and plot, in short and concise words, illustrations and even symbolic expression. Card games differ from novels especially in that card games are non-linear games with no plot design, and are not driven by plot. Therefore, there would be no such thing as game plot that matches or corresponds to that of the original work. The levels in card games are only scenes for players to fight. The connection and cut-scene introduction between levels do not move the game forward, and there is no logical causal relationship between levels. No matter how the levels/ scenes change, players play the game according to the rules preset in the cards— grouping and competing for cards. However, the setting of levels may lead to the misunderstanding that the context of the levels constitute plot, to which the court of first instance did not pay attention. In summary, to determine whether the Infringing Game constituted an adaptation of the Disputed Novels, the key issue is to examine whether the cards of the Infringing Game (mainly cards of the characters) used the original expression of the Disputed Novels (mainly characters of the novels).
3.Results of comparison for infringement determination between the Infringing Game and the Disputed Novels
Following the above comparison rules and methods, the Appellants compared the notarized downloaded contents of the Infringing Game with the corresponding contents of the Disputed Novels, and drew the following conclusions: 1) The Infringing Game used the original expression of the Disputed Novels systematically in the shaping of characters, martial arts, accessories and cards of formations, and highly restored the original expression of the Disputed Novels in the form of cards; 2) The Infringing Game had used the original expression of the Disputed Novels in the setting of game rules. According to the primary and secondary position of the characters, the relationship between the characters, the life experience and the characteristics of martial arts of the characters in the Disputed Novels, the Infringing Game set the level of the cards and the power of the attack force of different card groups, easily reminding players of the Disputed Novels; and 3) For the “levels” which are insignificant to a card game, the Infringing Game used a large amount of original expression of the Disputed Novels in its setting. In a word, the Appellees made full and systematic use of the characters and other original expression of the Disputed Novels in the Infringing Game in the form of “cards,” which highly restored the Disputed Novels and clearly constituted an adaptation of the Disputed Novels.
To sum up, in determining the infringement of the adaptation right involving online games, considerations should firstly be given to the specific forms of the game involved to understand the ways and characteristics of its use of the expression of the original works in detail, so as not to deny or neglect the use of the original expression of the original works due to the change in the way of such use.
(II)Supplementary evidence and claims of the Appellants with respect to the amount of damages in the case
Regarding the determination of the amount of damages in this case, the Appellants further supplemented the evidence through investigation in the second instance to consolidate the basis for judgment and compensation. In addition, the Appellants held that the amount of damages calculated by the court of first instance according to the multiple of the license fee for the copyright of the Disputed Novels was not commensurate with the infringement consequences in this case. Based on the additional evidence submitted in the second instance, the Appellants put forward the following claims:
1.According to the provisions of Article 49 of the Copyright Law[4] and Article17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law,[5] the order of calculation of damages for infringement is the loss of the obligee, the profit of the infringer and the legal compensation. As it was difficult to determine the losses caused to the Appellants by the Appellees’ behavior in this case, the Appellants (plaintiffs in the first instance) claimed to calculate the amount of damages based on the Appellees’ profits from the infringement in the two trial procedures, and submitted preliminary evidence of the Appellees’ profits from the infringement in the first instance (the profit records of Tales of Kongfu Masters in the public transfer prospectus of Firevale and the prospectus of Kunlun Tech). The court of first instance recognized the authenticity of the above evidence, and finally decided on the amount of damages considering that the contribution rate of the Disputed Novels to the profits from the infringement of the Infringing Game was difficult to determine. The result was not commensurate with the profits from the infringement.
2.If the contribution rate needs to be reviewed, the burden of proof for the contribution rate should have lied with the Appellees rather than the Appellants, as it was difficult for the Appellants to access the relevant financial data of the Appellees. Nevertheless, the Appellants submitted supplementary evidence on contribution rate in the second instance. First, the Appellants submitted the Value Assessment Report on the Mobile Game Adapted from Digital Entertainment IPs[6] issued by relevant industry organizations, which showed that the contribution of a popular IP (including novels, etc.) to the operating income of an adapted work could be more than double the amount of the sales revenue of the work. As for the “great IPs” such as the Disputed Novels (according to the Appellees’ relevant statements in the first instance, the Disputed Novels were regarded as “great IPs”), based on the observation of the industry market in the above-mentioned report, the value was of course very huge. In accordance with the report, the Disputed Novels may contribute to 90% or more of the profits from the infringement of the Infringing Game. Second, the Appellants commissioned relevant industry organizations to investigate and issue the Report on the IP Value Research of the Martial Arts Card Game Tales of Kongfu Masters.[7] The report was based on an investigation of 1969 players of the Infringing Game on their feelings about the appearance and playing mode of the game, as well as the situation of recharge in the game. The research result showed that about 93.3% of the players thought that the Infringing Game had highly restored the Disputed Novels, and 94.4% thought that roles of the character cards of the Infringing Game were attractive to them. Based on the contribution rate calculated according to this report, the profits from the infringement of the Appellees were far higher than the amount claimed by the Appellants.
3.Through the analysis of factors that contributed to the success of the Infringing Game by exclusion methods, it proved that the key to the success of the Infringing Game lies in making use of the value and market appeal of the Disputed Novels. First, according to the records of the first-instance inquest, the Appellees recognized that the Infringing Game was developed on the basis of Cocos2d-x open-source software, that is, the development cost of the Infringing Game was relatively low, which was almost negligibly relative to its income. Second, the success of the Infringing Game was not resulted from the Appellees’ development experience or was basically negligible relative to the income of the Infringing Game. Third, the Appellees’ publicity for the launch of the Infringing Game was mainly based on the market appeal of the Disputed Novels. For example, to market the Infringing Game, they commissioned a micro-movie using the main characters in the Disputed Novels. In addition, as confirmed by the Appellees in the first instance, the income claimed by the Appellants in this case from the operation of the Infringing Game was the“net income” of the Appellees, which had clearly deducted the channel fee. As such, the Appellants claimed that based on the above facts, it was “highly probable” to assume that the development and operation (including publicity and promotion) of the Infringing Game had made use of the value and market appeal of the Disputed Novels to a large extent, which was the key to the great success of the Infringing Game.
4.In this case, the Appellants already provided preliminary evidence of the Appellees’ profits from infringement, and after repeated inquiries by the courts of the two instances, the Appellees clearly refused to submit the financial books related to the alleged acts. According to the rules of obstruction of proof established by the Supreme People’s Court in its Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Certain Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, the Appellees should bear the corresponding adverse legal consequences in accordance with the law in view of the objectivity, truthfulness and clarity of the preliminary evidence provided by the Appellants, thus the Appellants’ claim shall be supported. In addition, during the trial of the second instance, the Higher People’s Court of Beijing issued the Guidelines for Trial of Copyright Infringement Cases in which Article 8.7 clearly stipulates that “Where it is difficult to determine the actual losses of the obligee, but the obligee has provided preliminary evidence of the infringer’s illegal income, the infringer may be ordered to provide the books and materials related to the infringement when the same are mainly held by the infringer; if the infringer refuses to provide or provides false account books and materials, the amount of the infringement proceeds may be determined according to the claims of the obligee and the evidence provided.” The Appellants claimed that such rule shall be applicable to this case.
IV.Judgment of the second instance and its significance
The judgment of the second instance reversed the first instance judgment and confirmed the adaptation right infringement. The ideas and methods adopted in the trail are of significance to the future trial of similar cases (involving adaptation to online games), and even to the realization of the property interests of novels and other works in the current society and the establishment of a healthy market competition order for related cultural industries, as detailed below.
As mentioned above, for the determination of infringement of the adaptation right in this case, it was necessary to clarify which elements constituted the original expression of the Disputed Novels first. In response to this question, the second instance judgment stated explicitly at the beginning: “The protection of works by the copyright law is the protection of the original expression of the author in the works, that is, the form to express thoughts or feelings. This does not include the thoughts and feelings reflected in the works. The expression protected by the copyright law refers not only to the final form of characters, colors, lines and other symbols, but also to the content of a work when it is used to reflect the author’s thoughts and feelings.” The judgment then pointed out that characters, plots, scenes and other work elements involved in the adaptation of movies, television and games, i.e. contents of a work, should be deemed as either abstract or specific creative elements. For abstract creative elements such as themes, genres, subjects, and facts, different creators could use different creative methods for individualized expression and should not be monopolized by a specific subject; for specific creative elements such as structure, plots, and characters, the choices, arrangements and designs of such elements were original, and should be protected by the copyright law. The analysis of “specific creative elements” clarifies and enriches the commonly used concept “work elements.” It conforms to the expression characteristics of novels and other works with story content, and is more consistent with the interpretation of the basic elements of novels by novelists in all ages.
For the specific comparison between the Disputed Novels and the Infringing Game in this case, based on the unique expression form of the card game and through reviewing the use of content of the Disputed Novels in the Infringing Game, such as the characters, martial arts, accessories, formation cards and levels, the court of second instance determined that the cards and levels had strong correspondence with the corresponding content of the Disputed Novels in terms of name setting and description of specific matters; moreover, the unique design and arrangement of the Disputed Novels in relation to the characters, martial arts, accessories, formations and specific scenes were directly used in the design of card combination rule. On this basis, the court of second instance further stated that “…the Infringing Game has used the original expression of the Disputed Novels, which is not the general overall or partial use, but has intercepted and combined the original expression of the Disputed Novels.” The words “intercepted and combined” precisely summarized another customary way in which card games use the original expression of the original works. In addition, it also specially emphasized the relationship between “expression” and “form of expression,” and further concluded that the original expression of the original work used in the adapted work in a unique form of expression was not a new expression separate from the original work. This conclusion is very important for the correct use of infringement comparison method in similar cases.
In addition, the second instance judgment also stated that the property interests of the works should ultimately be realized through market transactions. For the martial arts novels that are adapted to games, the martial arts, accessories, formations, scenes and their interrelation design centering on the characters in the novels were the core creative elements that embodied the author’s choices, arrangement and design. If no copyright protection was given to these elements, the mobile terminal game adaptation right and related rights and interests of the Disputed Novels would be difficult to realize. This was basically consistent with the Appellants’ view when they determined the appeal target, that was, to protect the Disputed Novels from the perspective of copyright law could guide the IP adaptation market to give full respect to the rights holders (including copyright owners and legally authorized licensees, etc.), and would also be more beneficial to the establishment and maintenance of benign rules in the relevant market. Currently, outstanding literary works such as martial arts novels have become a popular source for adaptation into movies, television and games, and the property value of these works is much higher than ever before. The core creative elements of such works (including characters, storylines, martial arts, and accessories) are the key to the adaptation value. As mentioned above, the use and authorization of these elements are often specially provided under the adaptation right authorization agreements of the game industry. Giving copyright law protection to these original elements is in line with not only legal principles, but also the need for orderly development of related cultural industries. It is of valuable practical significance for guiding the establishment of a standardized market order and reducing disputes.
Regarding the amount of damages in this case, the amount of damages in the first instance set a record high among the same kind of cases, and was upheld in the second instance judgment based on the circumstances of the case. As for whether and how to determine the contribution rate, as well as the application of proof obstruction system, the judgment of second instance has not further evaluated and determined.
The Plaintiffs originally sued four companies and later on withdrew their claims against one of them.
As stated above, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants had appealed. For the convenience of discussion, the Appellants mentioned in this article will only refer to the Plaintiffs and the Appellees only refer to the Defendants.
The first-instance judgment determines that: “The profit obtained by the infringer as a result of the infringement during the period of the infringement is different from the operating profit obtained by the infringer as a result of the operation of the infringing goods or services during the period of the infringement. In determining the profits obtained from the infringement in this case, the degree to which the three defendants have used the market value of the works involved in the case to promote their game services and the contribution rate of relevant elements in the works involved used by the three defendants without permission to the business profit of the ‘Tales of Kongfu Masters’ shall be considered.”
Article 49 of the Copyright Law stipulates that “In the case of infringement of copyright or copyright- related rights, the infringer shall make compensation based on the actual losses of the rights holder; where it is difficult to compute the actual losses, compensation shall be made based on the illegal income of the infringer. The compensation amount shall also include reasonable expenses incurred by the rights holder to stop the infringement act …”
Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates: “The compensation for a business operator who suffer damages due to unfair competition shall be determined in accordance with the actual losses suffered as a result of the infringement; where it is hard to ascertain the actual losses, the compensation shall be determined in accordance with the gains made by the infringer from the infringement. The compensation amount shall also include reasonable expenses incurred by the operator to stop the infringement act …”
Released by the Global Digital Entertainment Economics Research Institute, which was jointly established by Gamma Data and Daily Economic News.
Issued by Shanghai iResearch Market Consulting Co., Ltd.
