It has long been debated whether card games can be protected as audiovisual works under copyright law, and whether copyright law or the Anti-Unfair Competition Law should be applied to those “reskinned” games that copy game rules and gameplay.
Recently, a case heard by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court provided a clear answer.
Background: The plaintiff, Shanghai L Network Technology Co., Ltd., is the operator of the game “Jianmou.” They claimed that this game could be protected as an audiovisual work under copyright law. The plaintiffs discovered that the game “Shengshu Huange” developed and operated by the defendants, extensively copied the core gameplay, interface settings, main storyline, characters, skills, equipment system architecture, etc., of Jianmou, constituting substantial similarity. Therefore, the plaintiff filed lawsuit with the court, claiming compensation of more than RMB 30 million for economic losses and reasonable expenses.
Judgment: The court of first instance found that the game “Jianmou” constituted an audiovisual work, and the accused game was substantially similar to it, and that copyright had been infringed. It ordered the defendants to stop the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the adverse effects, and jointly compensate RMB 5 million plus more than RMB 180,000 in reasonable expenses. Both parties were dissatisfied and appealed.
The court of second instance held that card games lack the “continuous dynamic images” required for audiovisual works and cannot be protected as audiovisual works; the images of the accused game differed from those of the game owned by the plaintiff, and only the game rules and gameplay had been copied. However, the game at issue enjoyed a high degree of fame, and its unique game rules and gameplay had relatively high commercial value and protectable competitive interests. The developer of the accused "reskinned" game subjectively had the intent to exploit the research and development achievements of others and avoid its own R&D costs, and objectively could divert users and seize market share, harming the plaintiff's lawful competitive interests and violating the principle of good faith, thus constituting unfair competition.
The court of second instance therefore revised the judgment, ordering the defendants to immediately stop the unfair competition acts and jointly compensate RMB 10 million in economic losses plus more than RMB 180,000 in reasonable expenses. (August 6, 2026 Shanghai High People’s Court)
Recently, a case heard by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court provided a clear answer.
Background: The plaintiff, Shanghai L Network Technology Co., Ltd., is the operator of the game “Jianmou.” They claimed that this game could be protected as an audiovisual work under copyright law. The plaintiffs discovered that the game “Shengshu Huange” developed and operated by the defendants, extensively copied the core gameplay, interface settings, main storyline, characters, skills, equipment system architecture, etc., of Jianmou, constituting substantial similarity. Therefore, the plaintiff filed lawsuit with the court, claiming compensation of more than RMB 30 million for economic losses and reasonable expenses.
Judgment: The court of first instance found that the game “Jianmou” constituted an audiovisual work, and the accused game was substantially similar to it, and that copyright had been infringed. It ordered the defendants to stop the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the adverse effects, and jointly compensate RMB 5 million plus more than RMB 180,000 in reasonable expenses. Both parties were dissatisfied and appealed.
The court of second instance held that card games lack the “continuous dynamic images” required for audiovisual works and cannot be protected as audiovisual works; the images of the accused game differed from those of the game owned by the plaintiff, and only the game rules and gameplay had been copied. However, the game at issue enjoyed a high degree of fame, and its unique game rules and gameplay had relatively high commercial value and protectable competitive interests. The developer of the accused "reskinned" game subjectively had the intent to exploit the research and development achievements of others and avoid its own R&D costs, and objectively could divert users and seize market share, harming the plaintiff's lawful competitive interests and violating the principle of good faith, thus constituting unfair competition.
The court of second instance therefore revised the judgment, ordering the defendants to immediately stop the unfair competition acts and jointly compensate RMB 10 million in economic losses plus more than RMB 180,000 in reasonable expenses. (August 6, 2026 Shanghai High People’s Court)