In the field of cross-border e-commerce, pixel-level plagiarism problems from independent websites occur from time to time, seriously damaging the rights and interests of original operators.
Let’s take a practical case to see how to deal with this type of infringement.
At the end of last year, a seller who had been operating an independent website brand for home storage products for more than three years approached us.
The seller has clear traces of originality in product design, photography, detail page copywriting and website interaction, and has accumulated a stable customer base in the North American market.
However, one day, he received several customer complaint emails one after another. Consumers reported that they had paid but did not receive the goods, and he had never handled these orders.
After investigation, he found a website whose domain name was only one hyphen different from his own. The page layout, logo position, product display method, detail page copy and even picture watermarks were all highly similar, making it almost difficult to distinguish the authenticity from the fake.
The other party accepted the order and collected payment but did not deliver the goods. All the after-sales anger was directed at the real owner.
This is a typical case of pixel-level plagiarism from an independent website.
From a legal perspective, this behavior touches on the confusing behavior regulated by Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, as well as the protection of the right to copy works in the Copyright Law.
In a cross-border context, the unified domain name dispute resolution policy also provides relief channels for malicious registration and use of confusing domain names.
The seller was very anxious when he arrived. He was mainly worried that the high threshold for obtaining evidence of overseas infringement and the long cross-border procedures would bring down the company. His family members also suffered psychological pressure and even persuaded him to give up.
However, we believe that this case is typical. If we build an evidence framework from multiple legal dimensions, it is not impossible to break the case.
After taking over, we sorted out several core difficulties.
The first is the complex nature of infringement, which usually involves multiple infringements being combined together, requiring the search for merging points in multiple legal dimensions; the second is the standardization of procedures for obtaining evidence abroad, ensuring that electronic evidence can withstand questioning; the third is the burden of proof of identity determination, which requires locking in the actual operator; the fourth is the calculation of actual losses, and the damage is difficult to quantify.
To address these difficulties, we have built a multi-layered progressive strategic framework.
The first level is the rapid cutting of domain name disputes. Through the unified domain name dispute resolution mechanism, confusing domain names can be transferred or closed in a relatively short period of time to stop the flow of intercepted traffic and the dilution of goodwill.
The second level is to use the platform mechanism to perform emergency blocking, initiate reports to search engine safe browsing reporting channels and payment processors, and cut off the payment collection capabilities of copycat sites.
The third level is to build a multi-evidence closed loop, fix the evidence along the three lines of information flow, capital flow, and behavioral trajectory, and continuously cross-verify.
In this case, the real turning point appeared in the proof of subjective intent.
Through the “version traceability comparison method”, we found that some of the product main images and detail page copy displayed on the copycat site contained watermarks and layouts used by the original site during a specific period of time, indicating that the plagiarists had systematically downloaded and retained the content of the original site. This is strong proof of subjective intention.
At the same time, by back-checking transaction records, we related some payment paths and specific payment accounts, forming a clear evidence advantage.
With the superposition of various strategies, in less than two months, the domain name of the copycat site was transferred to the name of our party, the payment channel stopped settlement services for the site, and the number of consumer complaints gradually dropped to zero.
In the end, we reached a settlement with the other party, who promised to close the counterfeit site, stop engaging in similar business activities, and paid compensation.
For sellers who encounter similar problems, here are some suggestions for reference.
First, after discovering that the site has been cloned, conduct standardized evidence collection as soon as possible and use screen recording to fix the evidence; second, make good use of platform mechanisms and domain name dispute procedures to quickly block; third, deeply explore the correlation of electronic evidence to prove the subjective intention of the other party; fourth, establish daily brand monitoring and evidence retention habits.
Pixel-level plagiarism of independent websites infringes upon the brand assets and business reputation of the original operator. However, through solid evidence work and reasonable strategic advancement, this type of infringement can be effectively resolved.
