Jay Chou sued NetEase's “World 3” unfair competition case second instance results. According to the judgment, the court of second instance upheld the original judgment of the first instance, and found that Jay Chou and Jaywell's appeal was not justified. The second trial held that from the relevant consumers' messages on the platform, it did not create a corresponding correlation or lead to confusion between the goods and services provided by NetEase and NetEase Thunderfire and Jay Chou and Jaywell. The court found that Jay Chou, as a highly recognizable public figure, should have a certain obligation to tolerate references to his topics on the internet. In addition when Jay released his new album, the related hot topics, words, and publicity reports were extremely common, and the activities of forwarding the lucky draw to give away the album were also more common. The self-funded lucky draw and spike activities of “World 3” were non-profit activities, NetEase and NetEase Thunderfire did not directly profit from them, and the album provided by Jay Chou was genuine, and did not infringe upon the rights and interests of consumers, and did not constitute unfair competition.