Enterprise search app shows that on January 29, the civil judgment of the first instance of the unfair competition dispute between Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and online tuyou (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. was officially announced, with the case number of (2019) Jing 0105 minchu No. 73675.
The plaintiffs Tencent computer company and Tencent technology company claimed that the main business of tuyou company is the technical development and service of game software, and there is a direct market competition relationship with the two plaintiffs. Tuyou’s online games such as “tuyou fight landlord” and “new happy fight landlord” developed and operated by tuyou company and “happy fight landlord” jointly operated by the two plaintiffs are both competitive products of “fight landlord” online game software.
In 2017, the two plaintiffs found that the Apple App Store provided an online game app called “new happy landlords”, which can be used with the account name and password of the “landlords” game software operated by tuyou company, and the number of game props displayed in the two games is the same after login.
In July 2018, tuyou company continued to infringe the rights again through its “tuyou fight the landlord” game released on wechat mini game platform, plagiarizing the remnant level board design of “happy fight the landlord” game released by the second plaintiff on wechat mini game platform.
Tencent believes that tuyou did not participate in the competition of the game industry through its own legal intellectual labor, but took the intellectual creation achievements of the two plaintiffs as its own through improper plagiarism, and took them as the selling point of promoting the game, seriously interfering with the normal operation of the two plaintiffs.
According to the judgment, online travel (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. shall compensate Shenzhen Tencent computer system Co., Ltd. and Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. for a total of 565600 yuan of economic losses within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment.
There is no difference in the playing methods of all kinds of “landlords fighting” apps, but it is suspected of plagiarism to copy the card surface, interface and visual effects of the remnant level created by another company in its own game.