This is also the first lawsuit case in China that uses Wechat Public Number and related minor procedures to make illegal Internet lending and publish Internet financial intermediary information.
According to the Civil Judgment, Kobe Technology and Haiyi Technology are two related operators of Wechat service, using the same means. Take Kobe Technology as an example. Since the second half of 2017, Kobe Technology has applied for 21 registered public numbers and 8 certifications. It relies on the forged network micro-loan license submitted at the time of registration to provide a service similar to "loan supermarket" in the public numbers. In its "Supermarket Home Page", most of the information of online loan products is equipped with "one minute review, three minutes purchase", "low threshold, fast purchase", "extremely fast purchase, second purchase!" Such introductions, each product has a "loan application" link, but when the user clicks on the "loan application" after the need for authentication, and then cheat the credit audit fee.
In order to delay, the two platforms also set up their own complaint system in the Wechat public number by imitating the Wechat "complaint" interface. When the user finds that he has paid the credit audit fee but has not received the corresponding loan, the forged platform will display the "successful submission" interface of complaints, and reply as an official team, saying that the Wechat team will verify as soon as possible, and inform you of the audit results through the "Wechat team". Of course, consumers have not been able to respond to the complaint.
Defendant's two platforms forged the official complaint interface of Wechat
As for the above-mentioned cases, Hangzhou Internet Court held that the three modes of action of the two defendants in this case, namely, falsifying loan qualification, false publicity by public numbers and imitating the official complaint interface of Weixin, violated Article 2, Article 6 (4) and Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law respectively, and constituted anti-unfair competition acts. As for the two defendants'imitation of Wechat complaint page, the complaint section of the accused public number used the same or similar page layout, font, color, icon and feedback content as Wechat complaint page in the complaint reason, complaint page and feedback link, and repeated use of the wording "Wechat Team" to make Wechat sufficiently effective. Ordinary users confuse the complaint interface with the official complaint interface of Wechat, which is the first case of counterfeiting the complaint interface of Wechat. In this case, there are some cases, such as the association of the main body of the company, the links of public accounts under different company names to websites under each other's names, etc. The two defendants'infringement acts cooperate with each other, their subjective consciousness is common, and the result of damage is the same, which constitutes joint infringement.
Eventually, Hangzhou Internet Court ruled that Kobe Science and Technology and Haiyi Science and Technology immediately ceased unfair competition, and within one month from the date of the judgment's entry into force, a statement was published prominently in the Legal Daily to eliminate the impact. In addition, Kobe Technology and Haiyi Technology jointly compensated the plaintiff for the economic loss of 650,000 yuan by Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. and Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.