*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Keywords: Civil; Copyright Ownership, Infringement; Counterfeiting; Withdrawal of Complaint; Withdrawal of Appeal;

Case Facts

Plaintiffs Shanghai [REDACTED] Technology Company. and Shanghai [REDACTED] Network Technology Company. allege that they hold the copyright to the computer software programs and artistic materials of the game in question. Shenzhen [REDACTED] Computer System Company. and Shenzhen [REDACTED] Technology Company. have, without authorization, infringed upon the copyrights of Shanghai [REDACTED] Technology Company. and Shanghai [REDACTED] Network Technology Company. and engaged in acts of unfair competition through their self-developed mobile game assistant and computer software. Therefore, the plaintiffs request the court to order: (1) Shenzhen [REDACTED] Computer System Company. and Shenzhen [REDACTED] Technology Company. to immediately cease the copyright infringement involving the infringement of the right of attribution, the right of reproduction, and the right of dissemination via information networks held by Shanghai [REDACTED] Technology Company. and Shanghai [REDACTED] Network Technology Company. with respect to the computer software works and artistic works of the mobile game "Mobile Legends: Bang Bang"; (2) that [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen immediately cease the acts of unfair competition against [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and Shanghai [REDACTED] Network Technology Company.; (3) Shenzhen Y Computer System Company. And a certain technology company in Shenzhen shall jointly publish a statement on the homepages of https://www.qq.com and https://myapp.com for a continuous period of thirty days to eliminate the adverse effects caused by the copyright infringement and acts of unfair competition;   ; Fourth, [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen shall jointly compensate [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] internet technology company in Shanghai for economic losses in the amount of RMB 3 million (currency as above ); 5. [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen shall jointly compensate [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] internet technology company in Shanghai for the reasonable expenses of 350,000 RMB incurred in safeguarding their lawful rights and interests.

The defendants, [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen, argued that they were not the perpetrators of the alleged infringing acts, and that the alleged acts did not constitute copyright infringement or unfair competition. Even if it constituted infringement, the claims of [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] network technology company in Shanghai should not be upheld.

The court found through its review that [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] internet technology company in Shanghai are the copyright holders of the game icons, graphic artworks, and computer software works at issue.The Shenzhen Computer Systems Company and the Shenzhen Technology Company used the artistic works in question—for which the Shanghai Technology Company and the Shanghai Internet Technology Company hold copyright—on the websites and mobile game emulators they operate, and provided downloads of the game in question. At the same time, they labeled the distribution platform for files used to download the game in question—which utilized the game's name and icon—as belonging to the Shenzhen Technology Company.

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued Civil Judgment No. (2020) Hu 73 Zhi Min Chu 392: 1. [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen shall jointly compensate [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] network technology company in Shanghai for economic losses of 800,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 200,000 yuan;2. [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen shall jointly publish a written statement on the homepage of [REDACTED] emulator website (https://gameloop.vip) for three consecutive days to rectify the situation (the resolution of the written statement shall not be less than 200×180 dpi, and the content of the statement must be reviewed by the court of first instance ); if this is not fulfilled by the deadline, the court of first instance will publish the main content of the judgment in relevant media, and the related costs shall be jointly borne by [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen; 3. The remaining claims of [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] internet technology company in Shanghai are dismissed. After the judgment was rendered, both parties filed appeals.During the second-instance proceedings, the parties reached a settlement. Consequently, on March 5, 2024, [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] internet technology company in Shanghai filed a motion with the court to withdraw their complaint, to which [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen agreed; [REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen also filed a motion with the court on March 5, 2024, to withdraw their appeal.On March 7, 2024, the Supreme People's Court issued Civil Ruling No. (2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Appeal No. 696: (1) To set aside the civil judgment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2020) Hu 73 IP Civil First Instance No. 392; (2) To grant the request of [REDACTED] technology company in Shanghai and [REDACTED] internet technology company in Shanghai to withdraw their complaint.

Judge's Opinion

Shanghai X Technology Company and Shanghai Y Network Technology Company filed a motion to withdraw their lawsuit during the second-instance proceedings of this case. As this motion has been agreed to by the other parties and does not harm national interests, public interests, or the lawful rights and interests of others, it should be granted. The first-instance judgment in this case shall be set aside in accordance with the law.[REDACTED] computer systems company in Shenzhen   and [REDACTED] technology company in Shenzhen filed an appeal because they were dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, and during the second-instance proceedings   , they agreed to the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the certain technology company in Shanghai and the certain network technology company in Shanghai.After the second-instance court granted the request of [REDACTED] Shanghai technology company and [REDACTED] Shanghai network technology company to withdraw their lawsuit and lawfully   set aside the first-instance judgment, the appeals of [REDACTED] Shenzhen computer systems company and [REDACTED] Shenzhen technology company have lost   their basis, and there is no longer any substantive necessity for them to withdraw their appeals.Therefore, the second-instance ruling revoked the civil judgment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2020) Hu 73 Zhi Min Chu No. 392 and granted the requests of [REDACTED] Shanghai technology company and [REDACTED] Shanghai internet technology company to withdraw their lawsuits. In accordance with Articles 15 and 14 of the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs," the case filing fees for both the first and second instances shall be charged at half the standard rate and shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first instance.

Judgment Digest

In a civil appeal case where both parties have filed appeals, if the plaintiff in the original trial requests to withdraw the complaint and the defendant in the original trial agrees to the plaintiff's withdrawal while also requesting to withdraw the appeal, once the plaintiff's withdrawal is granted and the first-instance judgment is set aside, the defendant's appeal lacks a corresponding basis, and there is no substantive necessity for the defendant to withdraw the appeal.In such circumstances, the operative part of the second-instance ruling need only include two provisions: the revocation of the first-instance judgment and the granting of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the action; court fees for both the first and second instances shall be collected at half the standard rate and, in principle, may be borne by the plaintiff.

Related Index

Article 157 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 336 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (Fa Shi [2015] No. 5, amended in 2022)

First Instance: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court Civil Judgment No. (2020) Hu 73 Zhi Min Chu 392 (November 29, 2022)

Appeal: Civil Judgment No. (2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Appeal 696 of the Supreme People's Court (March 7, 2024)

The text of this case was updated on May 29, 2025