Tianyancha court records show that a Xi'an municipal court has formally served papers in a civil suit brought by Oriental Youxuan (Beijing) Technology Co. — the firm behind the well‑known livestream retail brand Oriental Selection — against an individual merchant operating as "Zhenxuan Jubao" (甄选聚宝). The case, filed in Xi'an Xincheng People's Court, alleges unfair competition; the court issued service by public notice and set an open hearing for the day after the evidence deadline expires.
The procedural notice indicates the court delivered copies of the complaint and trial summons to the defendant's registered business address by public announcement, a method that becomes effective 30 days after posting if direct service fails. That step suggests either the defendant could not be reached at its registered contact details or the court is following routine procedure for individual-operated outlets whose contact information is incomplete or out of date.
Oriental Selection rose from an education company spin‑off into one of China's most prominent livestream retail brands, making the company's name and visual identity commercially valuable. Civil litigation over trade names and branding has become a frequent instrument for large e‑commerce and livestreaming firms seeking to block imitators, secure exclusive use of distinctive names, and deter copycat merchants that may siphon traffic or confuse consumers.
The claim of "unfair competition" can encompass a range of remedies in Chinese civil law — from injunctive relief and corrective advertising to financial damages and turnover disgorgement — especially where a plaintiff can show deliberate imitation, bad‑faith registration, or consumer confusion. For established livestream sellers, a favourable court ruling would provide both a legal precedent and a mechanism to purge similar names from e‑commerce platforms and social channels.
This dispute is emblematic of wider tensions in China's booming livestream commerce sector, where rapid brand commercialisation has outpaced some aspects of trademark policing and platform moderation. Large entrants increasingly rely on litigation alongside platform notice‑and‑takedown processes to protect intellectual property and customer goodwill, while smaller merchants face growing risk of being sued for names or marks that echo market leaders.
Beyond the immediate parties, the case will be watched by other content creators and platforms as a gauge of how courts handle name‑based disputes in the livestream economy. A clear, enforceable outcome would strengthen incentives for platforms to act pre‑emptively; an ambiguous or limited judgment would leave major brands dependent on a mix of private enforcement and administrative trademark channels to police imitation.