Today, the highly-watched unfair competition case between miHoYo and PDD Holdings Inc reached its final verdict. The Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court ruled that PDD Holdings Inc (Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd.) must immediately cease infringement activities, publish a statement to eliminate negative impact, and compensate miHoYo 1 million yuan for economic losses and legal costs. This nearly two-year dispute, triggered by PDD Holdings Inc's false advertising tactics to mislead users and exploit the influence of the Genshin Impact IP, has concluded with strong legal protection for original creators.

**Case Background: From "1 Yuan for Primogems" to Multi-Million View Traffic War**

In early 2024, during routine monitoring, miHoYo discovered numerous promotional videos on short video platforms featuring Genshin Impact characters and scenes, claiming "1 yuan for 10,000 Primogems" (Genshin Impact's in-game virtual currency) while providing download links to PDD Holdings Inc's app. Users who clicked the links could only receive "entertainment subsidies" from PDD Holdings Inc's platform, but could not obtain any game items. Investigation revealed that PDD Holdings Inc recruited short video creators, requiring them to use Genshin Impact branding and fixed scripts to drive app downloads, with related videos accumulating over 10 million total views.

miHoYo quickly took legal action, alleging that PDD Holdings Inc's behavior constituted counterfeiting, confusion, and false advertising. While PDD Holdings Inc argued the campaign was merely "marketing creativity," the court found that the company knowingly could not provide Primogems yet still exploited Genshin Impact's popularity to mislead users into downloading their app, continuing infringement activities for commercial gain.

**Key Verdict: From Legal Boundaries to Industry Warning**

The first-instance court found PDD Holdings Inc guilty of false advertising and ordered 350,000 yuan in compensation, but both parties appealed. The Zhejiang Provincial High Court's second-instance ruling further clarified the key disputes:

**Counterfeiting and Confusion Determination**: Genshin Impact characters, names, and related logos constitute "marks with certain influence." PDD Holdings Inc's overall usage demonstrated subjective intent to exploit this influence, leading to public misperception of cooperation between the parties.

**False Advertising Classification**: The "1 yuan for Primogems" promotion did not match actual services, directly harming consumer rights and miHoYo's reputation.

**Aggravated Damages for Malicious Infringement**: The court emphasized that PDD Holdings Inc continued infringement even after receiving legal notices, ultimately increasing compensation to 1 million yuan.

The verdict specifically noted that such behavior not only disrupts market order but may also trigger negative associations with legitimate games among users, damaging the industry's innovation ecosystem.

**Industry Impact: Milestone Significance for IP Protection**

This ruling is viewed as a landmark case for intellectual property protection in the internet sector:

**Corporate Warning**: Clarifies legal risks of "riding on popularity" marketing tactics and defines boundaries for using others' IP for traffic generation.

**User Rights**: Curbs false advertising's misleading effects on consumers and strengthens platform accountability.

**Innovation Incentive**: Provides judicial protection for original content and maintains fair competition environment.

miHoYo's legal department stated: "This case victory is not only a triumph for corporate rights protection but also a safeguarding of player trust." The company has initiated multiple IP lawsuits in recent years, building a comprehensive rights protection framework covering game content to peripheral products.

**Conclusion**

PDD Holdings Inc's million-yuan compensation serves not only as punishment for infringement but also as a recalibration of industry ecosystem. As traffic competition intensifies, finding balance between innovation and ethical boundaries becomes essential for all participants. As the verdict states: "Freedom in commercial competition should be premised on not trampling others' achievements."