Mihoyo sues the Tamamo Department Store and wins.

On June 17th, miHoYo's legal department issued a statement: the final judgment of the copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute between miHoYo and "Domo Wanshi Wu" has arrived. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal of the second instance and upheld the judgment of the first instance, ordering all defendants to immediately cease the infringement, publicly release a statement to eliminate the impact, and jointly compensate miHoYo for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.98 million yuan. "Domo Wanshi Wu" is a chain store with offline commercial collective shops in multiple locations nationwide, involving multiple affiliated entities behind it. The store operates under the guise of "derivative works," conducting large-scale commercial operations as a corporate entity: 1. Through direct operation and franchise models, they have opened dozens of stores nationwide, acquiring a large number of derivative works, affixing their own brand logo for repackaging, and then selling a large number of unauthorized peripheral products such as "Genshin Impact," "Honkai Impact: Star Rail," "Undecided Events Book," "Zone Zero," "Honkai 3," etc. 2. According to evidence, the involved products include badges, plaques, ornaments, and other categories, involving 141 game characters with a total of over 1500 products. 3. They further expanded their franchise business to scale up their infringing operations. In the first-instance litigation, "Domo Wanshi Wu" tried to shift the blame for infringement onto the derivative authors, claiming that "if it's an infringing product, then it's the derivative artists or associations that constitute the infringement." However, miHoYo believes that even if "Domo Wanshi Wu" loses the case, it has no right to hold the derivative authors accountable. After the first-instance judgment, "Domo Wanshi Wu" appealed, arguing that they were only a "consignor" and not the producer. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in the second instance decisively denied this, determining that their independent selection of products, active affixing of their own logo, and sales through specific channels have made the public believe that the products originated from the store, establishing their identity as the "producer" and should bear the corresponding infringement liability. This determination also prevents the infringement liability from being maliciously transferred to the derivative authors.