Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. sued Zile Company and its product seller Beijing Jingwei Zhicheng Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. to the Court, since considered that Beijing Zile Technology Co., Ltd. produced and sold Duyaya learning machines that prominently used "小杜" to refer to its products, and used "xiaodu xiaodu" voice commands to wake up and operate it, which has formed unfair competition. Baidu required the two defendants to stop the infringement and ruled Zile Company to eliminate the impact, compensate for economic losses and reasonably spend 3 million yuan.
A few days ago, the Haidian Court concluded the case, and the first instance judged that Zile Company eliminated the impact of its unfair competition behavior and compensated Baidu Online for economic losses of 500,000 yuan and reasonable expenditures of 50,000 yuan.
The plaintiff, Baidu Online, claimed that it was the developer and operator of "Xiaodu" AI electronic products including "Xiaodu Home 1S" (hereinafter referred to as Xiaodu Smart Speaker). "xiaodu xiaodu" was voice commands with wake-up and operation functions used by Baidu Online in AI electronic products which have been used for a long time. The product name "xiaodu" and voice commands "xiaodu xiaodu" have already had a certain impact. Baidu Online Company found that Zile Company produces and sells the same AI electronic product ‘Duyaya （杜丫丫）’ learning machine as Xiaodu smart speakers. The company prominently uses "Xiaodu" to refer to its products in its official website promotion content and Duyaya learning machine. Zile Company used the "xiaodu xiaodu" voice command in the Duyaya learning machine to wake up and operate, and conduct publicity on the official website. The above behavior makes the public be confused, and it constitutes unfair competition.
The defendant Zile Company argued that it did not have extended use of the "xiaodu" product name and the "xiaodu xiaodu" voice command; its use of the name "Du Yaya （杜丫丫）" and the voice command "xiaodu xiaodu （小杜小杜）" has a reasonable basis. The appearance, function, and target users of the products of the two sides are completely different, and there will be no confusion among consumers.
The defendant Jingwei Company argued that it only sold one device to Baidu Online as evidence of the case and deleted the product link promptly after learning of the lawsuit in this case.
In summary, the two defendants disagreed with all claims of Baidu Online.
After the trial, the Court held that through the extensive use and promotion of Baidu Online, "Xiaodu" is the product name of its smart speakers, which is a product name with certain influence as stipulated in Article 6 Item 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; "xiaodu xiaodu" is a specific voice command that is indispensable and frequently appears when users use Xiaodu smart speakers. This voice command has established a clear and stable association with Baidu Online and its products, and has a high reputation and influence which should be protected by Article 6 Item 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Combining with the popularity and influence of "Xiaodu" and "xiaoduxiaodu", Xiaodu smart speakers and Duyaya learning machine are similar products in terms of functions, audiences, and sales channels. Zile's behavior is malicious subjectively, and objectively it is easy for the relevant public to misunderstood that Duyaya Learning Machine and Baidu Online's Xiaodu smart speakers and related services may have specific associations in product development, technical support, and authorized cooperation, which could lead to confusion. The above behavior of Zile Company violated the provisions of Article 6, Paragraph 1 and Article 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and constituted unfair competition against Baidu Online. Jingwei's sales of Duyaya learning machine also lack a legal basis. Therefore, the Court made the above judgment. At present, the two parties have not confirmed whether to appeal.
In the process of human-computer interaction, voice commands with functions to wake up and operate products play an important role in the daily application and expansion of artificial intelligence technology. As China’s first unfair competition dispute involving voice commands for smart products, this case’s verdict effectively regulates malicious confusing and mislead the public in the artificial intelligence product market.
The verdict of this case is also a positive response to policies such as further strengthening the judicial work against unfair competition, advancing the intelligent and healthy development of digitalization, and promoting the development of emerging technologies industries.
