The Supreme People's Court of China released 10 typical IP cases in 2025.
Case 1
Administrative Case on Distinctiveness of a Phrase Mark: Company A vs. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), Administrative Dispute over Refusal of Trademark Application
Supreme People’s Court, (2025) Zui Gao Fa Xing Zai No. 200
[Factual Background]
Company A filed an application for the trademark "乔治勋爵的悲剧 (literal translation: The Tragedy of Lord George)" with the CNIPA on June 24, 2021, designating such goods as “toilet water; eau de Cologne; perfumes” in Class 3. Meanwhile, several trademarks such as "蓬帕杜夫人的茶杯 (literal translation: Madame de Pompadour's Teacup)", "花花公主的秘密 (literal translation: The Playful Princess’s Secret)", "莎菲女士的日记 (literal translation: Miss Saffy's Diary)" and "奥德利夫人的秘密 (literal translation: Lady Audley's Secret)" have already been registered on the goods “perfumes”. Company A has been selling perfumes bearing the brand "乔治勋爵的悲剧" in China since 2020. On various online platforms, numerous consumers and media outlets have published posts referring to a specific perfume launched by Company A as "乔治勋爵的悲剧". Regarding the said trademark application, CNIPA determined that "乔治勋爵的悲剧" is a phrase. When it is used on the designated goods such as perfumes, the relevant public would not easily recognize it as a trademark, so it hardly functions to distinguish the sources of goods, which constitutes the circumstance of lack of distinctive character as prescribed by Article 11(i)(3) of Trademark Law. Consequently, the CNIPA refused this trademark registration application. Company A, dissatisfied with this decision, initiated an administrative lawsuit. The trial court held that the trademark was devoid of distinctive character and dismissed Company A's claims. Company A appealed, but the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. Company A disagreed with the judgement and then applied for retrial with the Supreme People's Court.
[Judgement]
In the retrial, the Supreme People's Court held as follows: The combination of characters "乔治勋爵的悲剧" is not a fixed phrase in everyday language. Its composition, meaning, and pronunciation possess certain uniqueness. Its constituent elements are not common or conventional symbols in the perfume sector. Thus the mark has identifying characteristics as a whole. Furthermore, when used on the goods such as perfumes, "乔治勋爵的悲剧" does not function as an advertising slogan or a descriptive term related to the product, nor does it relate to the function, purpose, or other characteristics of perfumes. Judging from the trademark registration landscape in the relevant industry, numerous similar-styled trademarks have been approved for registration. According to the evidence on record, the relevant public have already used "乔治勋爵的悲剧" to refer to a specific perfume and are inclined to recognize it as an indicator of the source of goods. As a result, when used on the goods such as perfumes, the trademark "乔治勋爵的悲剧" is capable of functioning as the source of goods and possesses inherent distinctiveness. Accordingly, the Supreme People’s Court rendered a judgment, revoking the first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment, and ordered the CNIPA to make a new decision.
[Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of the determination of the distinctive character of phrase-based trademarks. The final judgment clarifies the criteria for assessing the distinctiveness of phrase-based trademarks, accurately grasps the legal essence of distinctive character and the actual circumstances of market development, and strikes a balance between the registration freedom of business entities and the public interest. It leaves room for brand cultivation and effectively stimulates the innovation and vitality of market participants.
Case 2
Chip Invention Patent Infringement Dispute: Shenzhen Company A v. Chengdu Company B
Supreme People's Court (2023), Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2903
[Factual Background]
Company A, the patentee of the invention patent at issue, claimed that Company B infringed its patent right by manufacturing, offering for sale and selling power management chips. Thus, Company A filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order Company B and relevant sellers to cease the infringement and compensate for economic losses and pay reasonable expenses totaling CNY 10 million.
The first-instance court held that the circuit module in the alleged infringing technical scheme constituted an equivalent technical feature to the pulse signal generation feature recited in Claim 1 of the patent at issue, and thus the alleged infringing technical scheme fell in the protection scope of Claim 1 of the patent at issue. Accordingly, the court ruled that Company B and relevant sellers shall immediately cease the infringement and compensate Company A for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling CNY 1.2 million. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Company B filed an appeal.
[Judgment]
In the second instance trial, the Supreme People's Court held that when interpreting the protection scope of claims of invention patents in the electricity field involving logic circuits, emphasis shall be placed on understanding the logical connection, signal flow and control timing among various technical features, avoiding interpreting individual technical features in isolation from their logical chains.
In this case, the pulse signal generation feature in the patent claim shall be understood from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, based on the overall technical scheme of the claim, and in combination with the specification and drawings, common knowledge in the field and the drafting characteristics of the claim.
The circuit module in the alleged infringing technical scheme is different from the pulse signal generation feature in Claim 1 of the patent at issue in terms of technical means, functions and technical effects. The two constitute neither identical nor equivalent technical features. The alleged infringing technical scheme does not possess the pulse signal generation feature and thus does not fall within the protection scope of Claim 1 of the patent at issue.
Therefore, the Supreme People's Court ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and dismiss all litigation claims of Company A.
[Significance]
This case involves an invention patent infringement dispute concerning chip technology. As the core power supply component of electronic equipment, power management chips play a vital role in new energy vehicles, energy storage, and industrial fields.
The judgment in this case clarifies the considerations for patent claim interpretation and equivalent infringement determination in relevant technical fields, provides a judicial precedent for similar cases, and serves as a beneficial exploration in balancing public interests and innovation incentives.
Case 3
Trademark Infringement Case Concerning Resale of Refurbished Switches: Company A vs. Individual X, et al., Dispute over Trademark Infringement
Haidian District People's Court, Beijing (2023) Jing 0108 Min Chu No. 31466
[Factual Background]
Company A is the right owner of series registered trademarks involved in this case. These trademarks are registered on such goods in Class 9 as “stored program control telephone switch equipment; computer network switches; etc.” The three individual defendants, X and two others, purchased used switch equipment and components at low prices and organized refurbishing activities, including disassembly, cleaning, replacement of parts, altering serial numbers, spray painting, and repackaging, and then affixed the involved registered trademark labels onto the refurbished products. Company B, established by X and the other two individual defendants, together with its affiliated companies, sold the aforementioned refurbished products as new equipment. Beijing Haidian District People's Procuratorate initiated a public prosecution on this matter. The Court rendered a criminal judgment, finding Company B, X, and the others having committed the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and thus imposing corresponding fines. Company A held that, in addition to the four defendants (i.e. X and the three others), two other individuals, , had also participated in the sale and channel operation of the infringing products and had provided accounts to facilitate the transfer of infringing proceeds. And all six defendants had made their business out of infringing intellectual property rights and had gained huge profits. Therefore, they should bear civil liability for infringement, with punitive damages to be applied. Consequently, Company A lodged a trademark infringement lawsuit.
[Judgment]
The Court held in the first instance that where an administrative fine or criminal fine has already been imposed and executed for the same infringing act, a defendant's request for a reduction or exemption of punitive damages liability shall not be supported by the people's court. Nevertheless, the court may take the fact into comprehensive consideration when determining the multiplier for punitive damages. In this case, the six defendants, without the permission of Company A, and with the purpose of making illegal profits, adopted a division of labor and cooperative approach, purchasing used switch equipment and components through online and other channels, refurbishing them, affixing commercial signs that were basically identical with or similar to Company A's series of registered trademarks, and selling these products as new equipment, thereby jointly infringing Company A's exclusive trademark rights. Considering all the facts that 1) Company A's series of trademarks had previously been recognized as well-known trademarks on stored program control telephone switch equipment and thus enjoyed high reputation; 2) the defendants organized division of labor and cooperation, forming a complete infringement chain with covert and egregious means; 3) according to the prior criminal judgment and the defendants' own admissions, they had sold several thousand infringing products, showing large infringement scale, and high profits; and 4) the value of seized unsold infringing products exceeded CNY 5.4 million, the Court determined that the defendants' actions constituted willful infringement with serious circumstances, warranting the application of punitive damages. Taking into account the fact that some defendants had already executed the criminal fines imposed by the criminal judgment, the Court applied a punitive damages multiplier of three (treble damages) against the defendants, ultimately granting Company A's all claims, and ordering the six defendants to jointly and severally pay CNY 20 million in economic damages and CNY 100,000 in reasonable expenses. After the first-instance judgment was announced, some defendants initiated an appeal but later withdrew it. The first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Significance]
This case serves as a typical example of the application of punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes that involve "crossing of criminal and civil proceedings." Where the same infringing act has been found to constitute a criminal offense, and the people's court subsequently determines that it also constitutes civil infringement, punitive damages may be imposed in accordance with the law. This approach conveys a judicial orientation of rigorously combating and severely punishing serious infringing conduct. The final judgment properly assesses the factors warranting the application of punitive damages, takes into consideration the criminal fine imposed in the criminal proceeding, and reasonably determines the appropriate multiplier for punitive damages, thereby reflecting the fundamental legal principle that the penalty shall be commensurate with the wrongdoing.
Case 4
Criminal Case on Trade Secret Theft Involving Internal and External Collaboration: Individual Z and Thirteen Others
Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court (2024) Hu 03 Xing Chu No. 67
[Factual Background]
Individual X was originally the head of the radio frequency chip development department at Company A. After leaving that job, he set up two companies (together, referred to as Company B). Before and after forming these new companies, X recruited several people who were still working at Company A, including Zhou, to join Company B. Together, they decided to develop chips of the same type that Company A was making. To shorten the development time, speed up production, and attract investors more quickly, X instructed Zhou and three others to recruit more Company A employees. Seven other individuals, including Gao, knew that Company A had strict confidentiality measures in place, yet before or after leaving Company A, they either obtained technical information on their own or worked with other Company A employees to pass information to Company B for its chip development. Two other individuals, Zhao and Tu, while still working at Company A, also provided technical information to Company B upon its request. When X learned that Company A was preparing to file a lawsuit for infringement, he instructed Zhou and others to delete possibly infringing data from the company's servers, replace or destroy server hard drives, and have employees sign so called commitment letters to hide the illegal source of the technical information used by Company B. The Shanghai People's Procuratorate charged X and the thirteen others with trade secret theft and brought the case to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court.
[Judgement]
The court of first instance found that X and the others knew Company A had strict confidentiality measures. As outsiders, they had no right to access Company A's trade secrets. Nonetheless, they openly or indirectly used high salaries to tempt Company A employees to browse, download, copy, and take screenshots of confidential information and provide it to outsiders. This amounted to collaborating to obtain the company's trade secrets through improper means. The conduct was considered particularly serious and constituted trade secret theft. In this case, the investigating authority asked an asset appraisal company to estimate the present value of a reasonable licensing fee for the technical information at issue. The estimated value was over CNY 317 million, which the court found reasonable and used to determine the amount of loss. In determining responsibility, the court noted that Zhou and two others, as senior managers at Company B, played organizing, managing, and directing roles in the entire criminal activity. Because the different parts of the chip design were interconnected and could not be separated, these three individuals not only participated in and managed their own parts but also worked with specialists in other areas to coordinate the design. Therefore, as primary offenders, they were held responsible for the full extent of the crimes. The court also considered each defendant's role in the joint crime, the value of the trade secrets involved, whether and when they joined Company B, their job duties, salaries, and shares they received. The court found all fourteen defendants guilty of trade secret theft and gave each an appropriate sentence. The first instance decision is now final.
[Significance]
This case is a typical example of trade secret protection involving cutting edge technology. The decision correctly defined the conduct of each defendant and applied the proper standards for determining licensing fees. It strongly punished the actions of former employees who improperly took others' innovations and demonstrated the court's firm commitment to protecting technological innovation under the law.
Case 5
Unfair Competition Case Involving Malicious Poaching of Employees
Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu Province (2025) Su 05 Min Zhong No. 1693
[Factual Background]
Company A and Company B, along with their associate companies, were competitors in the same industry. The two companies had previously been involved in a trade secret dispute because one had hired the other's employees. They had reached a settlement agreement stating that neither party would directly or indirectly hire any of the other's current employees, former employees who had left within the previous six months, or employees who were still bound by non-compete obligations. Despite this agreement, Company B later hired more than twenty former employees of Company A, including department heads and senior technical executives. Company B also helped these employees find ways to get around their non-compete obligations. Company A argued that this conduct violated good faith and fair competition and filed a lawsuit asking the court to order Company B to cease unfair competition practices, issue a public apology, and pay CNY 2 million in damages. The lower court dismissed the claims, and Company A appealed.
[Judgement]
The appellate court found that because the two companies had a prior dispute over hiring each other's employees and had signed a settlement agreement, Company B had a duty to be cautious when hiring former employees of Company A. This duty included actively checking whether a potential hire had recently worked for Company A or its affiliates, and if so, notifying Company A and taking corrective action. Instead of following the settlement agreement, Company B continued to hire more than twenty former employees of Company A. It also helped them avoid their non-compete obligations by having a third party sign employment contracts on their behalf, arranging for a third party to pay their salaries and social insurance, offering high pay, and promising to cover any breach of contract penalties they might face. These actions showed that Company B knew, or should have known, that these former employees were bound by non-compete obligations and that it was engaging in malicious poaching. This conduct caused many of Company A's senior managers and technical staff to leave, weakened Company A's competitive position, increased its operating costs, and disrupted normal market competition. The court found that this constituted unfair competition. It reversed the lower court's decision, ordered Company B to immediately stop its unfair competition practices, and pay Company A CNY 1 million in damages.
[Significance]
This case is a typical example of combating unfair competition through malicious employee poaching. Such conduct essentially sacrifices the legitimate rights and interests of a competitor for short term gain and ultimately seriously disrupts the innovation ecosystem. The decision finds that this kind of behavior violates unfair competition law, stands firmly with businesses that compete honestly, and helps curb disorderly competition. It guides businesses back to healthy competition based on technological innovation and product quality.
Case 6
Unfair Competition Involving Scraping of Online Platform Data – Company A and Company B v. Company X, et al. for unfair competition dispute
Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (2024) Zhe 02 Min Chu No. 562
[Factual Background]
Company A and Company B are operators of two e-commerce platforms, respectively. The platforms stored substantial volumes of product data, including product names, product IDs, product images, prices, and discount/promotional information, etc.. Company A and Company B entered into Merchant Service Agreements with platform-based merchants, stipulating that, upon authorization by the merchants, Company A and Company B lawfully hold the aforementioned product data and enjoy operational benefits from partially using and processing the relevant data within the scope of authorization. They also adopted a series of management measures, such as releasing "Legal Statement" and signing Robots Protocol, which explicitly prohibit any unauthorized data acquisition. The defendants, Company X et al., obtained user cookies from the e-commerce platforms through a price comparison plugin, and by using such cookies in conjunction other technical means, circumvented multiple anti-scraping protection measures of the two platforms, thereby acquiring some product data which were then offered as paid data products and services by the defendants on their own websites/platforms. Company A and Company B instituted a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the defendants to cease the aforementioned data scraping and use activities and to compensate for economic losses amounting to CNY 20 million.
[Judgment]
The Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province, acting as the court of first instance, held that, based on the merchant service agreements and the authorizations from platform-based merchants, Company A and Company B enjoy operational interests in the product data involved in the case. The key to balancing interests in data unfair competition cases lies in demarcating the legitimacy of data acquisition methods and the reasonableness of data usage scenarios. For publicly accessible data, the boundary between fair use and improper acquisition must be clearly delineated; for conditionally accessible data, the scope of authorization, contractual terms, and methods of use shall be examined; for non-accessible data, technical protection and legal safeguards shall be strengthened. By using technical means, the defendants circumvented the risk control mechanisms of the e-commerce platforms, bypassed normal access permissions, simulated the behavior of ordinary users, and scraped a substantial volume of the product data involved in the case. Such conduct hindered and disrupted the normal operation of the platforms, compromised their security and risk control mechanisms, and infringed the privacy of certain ordinary consumers, thereby constituting unfair competition. The data products or services developed by the defendants, such as "Price Monitoring", "Market Analysis", "Customized API", contained inaccurate, low-quality data and also facilitated unreasonable price control for certain enterprise users. This inevitably harmed consumers’ rights and market competition order, ultimately impeded the healthy development of the data market and would be detrimental to public interests. Thus, the aforementioned usage of the data also constituted unfair competition. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendants to cease the unfair competition activities involved in the case, compensate Company A and Company B for economic losses of CNY 5 million, and eliminate the adverse effects. The first-instance judgment has taken effect.
[Significance]
This case is a typical example of the protection for commercial data rights and interests, reflecting a tiered approach to protect data rights and interests. In the Judgment of this case, the court classified different types of the data, such as publicly accessible data versus non-accessible data and commercial data versus personal information, etc., into different tiers and explicitly demarcated the legal boundaries for data acquisition and usage. It not only prevents data monopolization and curbs malicious scraping and improper usage but also balances the legitimate rights and interests of all parties involved in data elements. This is a vivid demonstration of how the People's Courts actively respond to the legal demands of the digital economy and support innovation-driven development.
Case 7
Counterfeiting Registered Trademarks Involving Civil-Criminal Coordination - X's crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks
Yiyuan County People's Court of Shandong Province (2025) Lu 0323 Xing Chu No. 24
[Factual Background]
During the trial of a dispute over infringement of trademark rights, the Yiyuan County People's Court of Shandong Province discovered that materials provided by the alleged infringer, Li, specifically purchase lists and the like, indicated the infringing goods originated from Individual X, whose actions were suspected of constituting a criminal offense. Thus, the court then transferred the case clues to the public security authorities. Based on the clues, the public security authorities successfully solved the case involving X's counterfeiting of registered trademarks. Investigation revealed that from 2016 to 2024, without the authorization of a battery company, X purchased bare cells, paper cards bearing the counterfeit registered trademark, battery casings/wrappers, and other packaging materials from others. Then X assembled these components into counterfeit batteries and sold them. His actions constituted particularly serious circumstances. The Yiyuan County People's Procuratorate of Shandong Province instituted public prosecution against X for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. During the trial before the Yiyuan County People's Court, X voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishments, and compensated the battery company for economic losses of CNY 400,000, thereby obtaining the company's forgiveness.
[Judgment]
The Yiyuan County People's Court of Shandong Province held in the first instance that X, without the authorization of the trademark registrant, used a trademark identical to the registered trademark on the same goods and the circumstances were particularly serious. His action constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and his criminal responsibility should be pursued. The charges and criminal facts alleged by the public prosecution were sustained. X was summoned by the public security authority and appeared voluntarily. X truthfully confessed to the criminal facts, constituting voluntary surrender, for which he may be eligible for a lighter punishment under the law. Meanwhile, X voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishments, for which he may be eligible for a more lenient punishment under the law. In addition, X compensated the victimized company for its economic losses and obtained the victimzed company’s forgiveness, demonstrating his remorse, which could be considered for a discretionary lighter punishment. Accordingly, the court sentenced X to three years' imprisonment with a three-year suspension of execution and imposed a fine of CNY 200,000 for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. The court also ordered the destruction of the infringing products. The first-instance judgment has taken effect.
[Significance]
This case is a typical illustration of the reformation of the comprehensive trial mechanism for intellectual property disputes involving civil, administrative, and criminal cases. After discovering clues of criminal offenses during the handling of a civil dispute, the People's Court promptly transferred them to the competent authorities, ultimately holding the perpetrator at the source of the infringement criminally liable. This effectively integrated civil rights enforcement with criminal prosecution, completely severed the profit chain of manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods, and significantly enhanced the effectiveness of punishment and prevention.
Case 8
Commercial Defamation by an Online Commentator: Commercial Defamation and Reputation Dispute
Xuchang Intermediate People's Court, Henan Province (2025) Yu Zhi Min Chu No. 38
[Factual Background]
Commercial Group A and its affiliated companies have long followed a business philosophy of "satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" and "sincerity earns trust." As a result, they have expanded their operations and gained consumer recognition. Yu is the founder and legal representative of Group A.
Beginning in March 2025, Individual X, using an online account registered under another person's name, began posting videos on multiple social media platforms. The videos targeted Group A's business model, product quality, corporate reputation, and Yu's personal reputation. X's goal was to damage the company's image and Yu's personal standing while attracting followers and driving sales for his own affiliated businesses, including two jewelry companies. Group A and Yu filed a lawsuit, arguing that X’s actions constituted commercial defamation and also harmed Yu's personal reputation. They asked the court to order the four defendants to remove the infringing videos, issue written apologies and post them on their video channels, and pay a total of CNY 6 million in damages.
[Judgement]
The court of first instance found that X had fabricated and spread false and misleading information, which caused public suspicion and damaged the trust Group A had built over many years. This led to returns of some of Group A's products and indirectly affected sales of other goods, disrupting normal market competition. These actions amounted to commercial defamation. X also posted false and negative statements about Yu using vulgar and insulting language, which damaged Yu's personal reputation and lowered his social standing. These actions constituted an infringement of Yu's personal reputation rights. The person who lent X the social media account failed to monitor how it was used, did not take corrective action such as canceling the account, and did not stop the infringing conduct. The two jewelry companies, which were set to benefit from the attention and traffic generated by X's posts, knowingly allowed the false information to spread and acted with fault. Their conduct, combined with X’s actions, directly caused the same harm and amounted to joint infringement. The court ordered the four defendants to stop infringing, remove the videos, issue apologies and post them on their video channels, and pay Group A and Yu a total of CNY 2.6 million in damages and reasonable legal costs. The first instance decision is now final.
[Significance]
This case is a typical example of using the law to stop online commercial defamation. The decision strictly punishes the actions of online commentators who spread rumors for profit and clarifies the boundary between legitimate public comment and malicious infringement. The ruling bolsters entrepreneur confidence, cleanses the online ecosystem, and foster a better business environment.
Case 9
Copyright Infringement through Online Sale of Pirated E books: Infringement of the Right to Disseminate Works over Information Networks
Changde Intermediate People's Court, Hunan Province (2024) Xiang 07 Zhi in Zhong No. 25
[Factual Background]
Group A, a publishing group, held the right to disseminate certain books over information networks. Individual X operated a store on an e commerce platform run by Company B. Group A sent multiple cease and desist letters to Company B, stating that all e book versions of its publications sold on Company B’s platform were pirated. The letters identified the specific e books and asked Company B to take action, including shutting down the offending store. However, pirated copies of the books continued to be sold through X’s store. Group A filed a lawsuit, asking the court to order X to immediately stop selling the infringing e books, and to order both X and Company B to jointly pay CNY 10,000 in damages and reasonable legal costs. After the lawsuit was filed, Company B blocked the sale of the disputed products. The lower court ordered X to pay Group A CNY 2,000 in damages and reasonable costs, and ordered Company B to be jointly liable. Company B appealed.
[Judgement]
The appellate court found that Company B knew that sellers on its platform selling e books were required to register as market entities and obtain a publication license. Although the platform had established certain qualification requirements, it failed to properly enforce them. The platform did not create a proper category for e books or digital publications, nor did it clearly post qualification requirements on its help pages. It did not guide or regulate sellers selling e books. The platform allowed X to begin operating without verifying his qualifications at the time of registration and failed to perform ongoing monitoring or update its checks. Moreover, even after receiving multiple cease and desist letters from the Group A, Company B still did not take necessary action. Therefore, Company B was held jointly liable with the seller. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
[Significance]
This case is a typical example of e commerce platforms selling pirated e books. The evidence showed that when a platform operator knows or should know that someone is using its service to infringe another person's rights and fails to take necessary action, it can be held jointly liable under the Civil Code. The decision emphasizes that platforms must take their responsibilities seriously, improve their internal management systems, and continuously raise their governance standards.
Case 10
Unfair Competition Case Involving Repeated Bad Faith Trademark Filings
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2025) Yue 73 Min Zhong No. 656
[Factual Background]
Company A had been the registered owner of the Blue Girl series of trademarks since 2001, covering beer and other beverages. These trademarks had become reasonably well-known through continuous promotion. Company B, a competitor in the beer industry, repeatedly hired Firm C, a trademark agency, to file more than ten trademark applications between 2017 and 2022 for marks such as Blue Taste Beer, Blue Charm Beer, Zheng Han Blue Girl, and Blue Taste Gold Can. Company B also licensed two of those marks to others for use. Prior administrative rulings and court decisions had already found that these marks were confusingly similar to Company A's Blue Girl trademarks for identical or similar goods. One court decision had also found that Company B's pattern of filing trademarks was a clear attempt to copy others' well-known brands, violated the principle of good faith, disrupted normal trademark registration and use, and fell under the provision of the Trademark Law that prohibits obtaining registration by other improper means. As a result, all of Company B's related trademark applications had been rejected, refused for registration, or declared invalid. Company A argued that Company B's conduct in filing these similar trademarks and Firm C's role in providing agency services amounted to unfair competition. Company A filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order both companies to stop, and to order Company B to pay CNY 1 million in damages and reasonable legal costs, with Firm C jointly liable for CNY 250,000 of that amount. The court of first instance found that Company B's trademark filing and licensing activities constituted unfair competition, and that Firm C had contributed to the infringement and should be jointly liable with Company B. The court ordered Company B to pay Company A CNY 500,000, and ordered Firm C to be jointly liable for up to CNY 100,000 of that amount. Firm C disagreed and appealed.
[Judgement]
The lower court found that Company A's Blue Girl series trademarks had already gained a certain level of recognition before the disputed trademarks were filed. Company A had prior rights in those marks. Multiple prior court decisions and administrative rulings had already determined that Company B's trademark filings were improper and disrupted fair market competition. As a competitor in the same industry, Company B knew about Company A's Blue Girl trademarks but repeatedly filed similar marks well beyond normal business needs. This was done to take advantage of Company A's reputation and profit improperly. These were bad faith trademark filings. In addition, by licensing two of the marks to others, Company B was hoarding trademarks for profit. This conduct violated the principle of good faith, harmed fair market competition, and damaged Company A's legitimate rights, making it unfair competition. Firm C, a professional trademark agency located in the same region as Company A, should have been aware of the reputation of the Blue Girl trademarks. After one of its filings for Blue Charm Beer was rejected and especially after courts had already made unfavorable rulings against Company B's filing practices, Firm C continued to accept Company B's instructions to file additional applications. Knowing that Company B was acting in bad faith, Firm C's continued service made it a contributor to the infringement. The first instance court ordered Company B to pay Company A CNY 500,000 and ordered Firm C to be jointly liable for up to CNY 100,000 of that amount. Firm C appealed, but the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court affirmed the first instance court's decision.
[Significance]
This case is a typical example of using Unfair-Competition law to stop repeated and persistent bad faith trademark filings. The decision disapproves of conduct where a party continues to file numerous trademark applications after earlier filings have already been found improper. It also holds the IP agency firms involved in the filing process responsible. This helps combat bad faith trademark practices and maintain fair market order.
