W&B's case involving the online game Hearthstone can serve as a useful example in answer to this question. In that case, recognized as a 2015 Top 10 Landmark Shanghai Case, W&B represented plaintiff Blizzard Entertainment Inc., and determined that the keys to effective enforcement in that case arose from the following principles: (i) unauthorized use of the unique packaging of a well-known product; (ii) false advertising; and (iii) plagiarism of the core intellectual property of the game (i.e. game rules) that violated the principles of consent, equality, fairness and honesty and constituted unfair competition. Among these keys, the application of the basic principles of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect the core intellectual property of the game was the main issue.
By nature, game rules can be classified as "ideas" rather than the "expressions of ideas" that are protected under the Copyright Law; consequently, game rules cannot be protected under the Copyright Law. Nevertheless, since Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides that operators should abide by the principles of consent, equality, fairness and honesty in market transactions and should comply with commonly recognized business ethics, the court ultimately ruled in our client's favor that the defendant's conduct (i) violated the self-regulation conventions of the gaming industry and (ii) ran counter to basic business ethics, leading to the feasibility and necessity of applying Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
