Case Numbers: Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2023) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 3802, Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court (2023) Jing 0105 Min Chu No. 71391 [Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition Beijing Dou [Redacted] Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Yi [Redacted] ke Information and Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.]

Case Brief

On June 15, 2020, Beijing Dou [Redacted] Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Dou [Redacted] Company") launched comic transformation effects on its "Dou [Redacted]" APP (a mobile application). This special effect enables real-time transformation of user-captured photos and videos into comic-style images by reconstructing facial features in proportion to the user's actual appearance and making fine-tuning. Dou [Redacted] Company asserted that this functionality was achieved through AI technology after a complex research and development process and gained widespread market popularity following its launch. On August 4, 2020, Yi [Redacted] ke Information and Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yi [Redacted] ke Company") launched a "Girl Comic" special effect on its mobile application. The comic images and videos generated by this special effect were visually highly similar to those produced by Dou [Redacted] Company's comic transformation effects. Dou [Redacted] Company alleged that Yi [Redacted] ke Company had copied the model structure and parameters of its comic transformation effects and that the imaging results of the "Girl Comic" special effect and the comic transformation effects were strikingly alike, constituting unfair competition. Consequently, Dou [Redacted] Company filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the court to order Yi [Redacted] ke Company to cease infringement, eliminate impacts, and compensate Dou [Redacted] Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling over RMB 5 million. The court of first instance ruled that Yi [Redacted] ke Company's actions had harmed Dou [Redacted] Company's competitive interests and constituted unfair competition as prohibited under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Yi [Redacted] ke Company filed an appeal.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that Dou [Redacted] Company had invested substantial operational resources in the research and development of the comic transformation effects model. The parameters and structure of the comic transformation effects model, refined through data training and calibration, enabled users of the Dou [Redacted] App to generate animated images that corresponded to real-life individuals, and provided Dou [Redacted] Company with innovation advantages, operational revenues, and market interests, and thus the comic transformation effects model (structure and parameters) constitutes a competitive interest protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for Dou [Redacted] Company. Based on a comparative analysis of evidence across three dimensions, including the possibility of access, comparison of model structure and parameters, and evidence of independent research and development, there was a high probability that Yi [Redacted] ke Company had directly utilized the structure and parameters of Dou [Redacted] Company's model involved. In the absence of contrary evidence, Yi [Redacted] ke Company should bear the consequences of failing to meet its burden of proof. By directly appropriating the AI model's structure and parameters, which another operator had developed through significant human, material, and financial investments, Yi [Redacted] ke Company avoided the time and costs of collecting training data and training the model. This allowed it to rapidly erode Dou [Redacted] Company's competitive edge, which had been established through hand-drawn training data and computational resources, and to compete for traffic and users shortly after Dou [Redacted] Company's comic transformation effects were launched. Such conduct violated widely recognized business ethics in the AI research, development, and operational sector, demonstrating its unfair nature. The "Girl Comic" special-effect model developed by Yi [Redacted] ke Company and the comic-transformation effects model created by Dou [Redacted] Company produce visually similar results, with significant overlap in user demographics, target markets, and channels/manners of product delivery. It can be concluded that the "Girl Comic" special effect serves as a strong substitute for and diverts traffic from the comic transformation effects. Yi [Redacted] ke Company has caused substantial damage to Dou [Redacted] Company's competitive interests, disrupted the operation of AI models and the healthy and orderly competition order, and harmed consumers' legitimate rights and interests. Consequently, Yi [Redacted] ke Company's actions have constituted unfair competition as prohibited under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court of second instance accordingly rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical example of protecting developers' competitive interests regarding the structure and parameters of AI models in accordance with the law. The judgment in this case clearly states that the AI model parameters and structures developed by operators through data training, optimization, and tuning can bring them innovative advantages and business benefits, which fall within the competitive interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This case has positive significance for regulating the development of the AI industry and maintaining market competition order in emerging fields.

(Source: Typical Cases on Anti-Unfair Competition in 2025 (No. 8) issued by the Supreme People's Court)