On the 20th, the Supreme People's Court released typical cases of intellectual property rights in the People's Courts of 2025, including the "Xuchang Panmou Commercial and Trade Group Co., Ltd., Yu Moumou, and Chai Moumou Commercial Defamation and Reputation Dispute Case", which clearly states that the "Internet haters" who spread rumors and speculate for profit will be severely punished in accordance with the law for commercial defamation. This case clarifies the boundary between public opinion supervision and malicious infringement, which has positive significance for boosting entrepreneurs' confidence in development, purifying the online ecosystem, and continuously optimizing the business environment. It is reported that Xuchang Panmou Trading Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Panmou Company") and its affiliated companies adhere to the business philosophy of "returning goods if not satisfied" and "exchanging genuine products for genuine ones", and their business scale continues to expand, gaining recognition from consumers. Yu is the founder and legal representative of a fat company. Starting from March 2025, Chai, with the help of Wen's real name registered account "Chai Mou Bi", continuously posted videos on multiple social media platforms involving the profit model, product quality, corporate reputation, and personal reputation of Fat Company, maliciously smearing and slandering Fat Company and others, and taking the opportunity to attract fans, attract traffic, and promote products, creating a competitive advantage for their affiliated companies, Wenzhou Jewelry Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Jewelry Co., Ltd. Regarding this, Pang Company and Yu Company believe that the above-mentioned behavior constitutes commercial defamation and infringes on their reputation rights. They have filed a lawsuit, requesting that the four defendants delete the infringing videos, issue a written apology, and post the apology content on their video accounts, and compensate for a total of 6 million yuan in losses. The court held that Chai committed the act of fabricating and disseminating false and misleading information, which aroused inappropriate suspicion from the public towards Fat Company, damaged the public trust accumulated by Fat Company for many years, and caused some of its products to be returned, which indirectly had a negative impact on the sales of other commercial formats and disrupted the normal market competition order. Chai's above behavior constitutes commercial defamation. At the same time, Chai used derogatory and vulgar language, posted false negative comments targeting someone, and engaged in insulting and defamatory behavior towards someone. This objectively led to negative public perception of someone's character and reputation, resulting in a decrease in their social evaluation. Chai's above behavior constitutes a violation of someone's reputation rights. So, should the person lending the account and the party enjoying the traffic dividend be held responsible? The court held that after lending his social media account, Wen did not fulfill his supervisory obligations to verify the account usage, did not take remedial measures such as account cancellation, and did not stop the infringement behavior. Wenzhou Jewelry Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Jewelry Co., Ltd. have taken a laissez faire attitude towards the false information released by Chai in order to enjoy the traffic dividends brought by infringement and obtain improper commercial benefits, which is a fault. The above-mentioned behavior, when directly combined with the accused behavior of Mr. Chai, results in the same damage consequence and constitutes joint infringement. In the end, the court ruled that the four defendants should cease infringement, delete infringing videos, issue apology statements and post them on their video accounts, and compensate Fat Company and Yu Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.6 million yuan. (New Society)