The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court concluded a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute between Tianjin Yiqu Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yiqu Company) and Shanghai Yumeng Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yumeng Company). In the appeal case, the judgment of the first instance was upheld and Yumeng was ordered to immediately stop the unfair competition in the game software involved and compensate Yiqu for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1.6 million yuan.

After the trial, the court of the first instance held that the "King of Fighters" game as a whole could not constitute a continuous picture, lack the expression of the movie plot, and could not constitute a genre movie work. "The King of Fighters" game UI interface, game rules description articles, and novice guidance have not formed original expressions. However, the structure and design of the rules of the game are the core elements of a game. The plagiarism of Yumeng Company harms the results of intellectual labor of Yiqu Company, violates the principles of business ethics and honesty and credit, and constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, it was ordered that Yumeng Company immediately cease the unfair competition behavior involved in the case, compensate Yiqu Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1.6 million yuan, and dismiss other claims of Yiqu Company.

Yiqu Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court.

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that whether the overall picture of an online game belongs to a movie-like work should at least meet the two conditions of continuous dynamic images and the ability to express a certain storyline. The game screens involved in "The King of Fighters" mostly do not have continuity, cannot show the perception of the characters or objects in the screen in motion, and do not have the corresponding plot or storyline, so it does not constitute a continuous dynamic screen of a movie-like work. Generally, the basic gameplay of similar games belongs to the basic rules and belongs to the category of ideology, and cannot fall into the protection scope of the copyright law. If the party claims that the game design constitutes a work, it should prove that the game design claimed belongs to the specific rules and is an expression of originality.

In this case, the evidence in the case cannot prove that the game design of the 20 system functions claimed by Yiqu Company is original, so it does not constitute a work in the sense of copyright law. However, Yumeng Company has obvious plagiarism in the design of game rules, which has caused damage to the relevant market of Yiqu Company and constitutes unfair competition.

In summary, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.