On April 22, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) releases the 2025 Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection by Procuratorial Organs (检察机关知识产权保护典型案例). The compilation contains ten selected matters handled by procuratorial authorities across multiple provinces, covering administrative protest proceedings, civil litigation supervision, criminal prosecution, and administrative public interest litigation.
The ten cases address a range of subject matter and procedural postures. They include an administrative protest case concerning trademark invalidation proceedings between Chengdu Huamei Dental Chain Management Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Huamei Plastic Surgery Hospital Co., Ltd., which examines the distinction between “prior rights” under Article 32 of the Trademark Law and the “prior use” defense under Article 59, paragraph 3. The compilation also covers a series of false litigation supervision matters involving fabricated copyright registrations used to extract settlements from online merchants, a trade secret case concerning carbon nanotube catalyst formulations, and a case of unlawfully providing commercial secrets to an overseas entity in the semiconductor sector.
Additional matters address copyright infringement involving reverse engineering of photovoltaic inverter software, infringement of pharmaceutical coding system software combined with circumvention of technical protection measures, infringement of game character artwork through unauthorized production of three-dimensional figurines alongside obscene article offenses, counterfeit service mark use through fraudulent appliance repair websites, a full-chain counterfeit perfume operation involving 24 defendants, and an administrative public interest litigation matter concerning geographical indication protection for “Wenxian Iron Stick Yam.”
The cases set forth procuratorial approaches to recurring issues, including the determination of non-public status for technical information, valuation methodology for trade secrets and infringing software, identification of unit crime versus individual liability, calculation of illegal gains in service mark cases, and the use of big data and cross-regional coordination to identify patterns of false litigation. The compilation is distributed to procuratorial organs at all levels for reference in handling comparable matters.
A translation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
Case 1
Chengdu Huamei Dental Chain Management Co., Ltd. appeals against Chongqing Huamei Plastic Surgery Hospital Co., Ltd.’s lawsuit against the China National Intellectual Property Administration regarding a trademark invalidation request.
【Keywords】
Supervision of effective administrative judgments; invalidation of trademark rights; prior trade name rights; prior use defense; appeal.
[Basic Case Facts]
Chengdu Huamei Dental Chain Management Co., Ltd. applied for registration of trademark No. 19391801 “Huamei Dental” (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) on March 23, 2016, and was approved for registration on June 28, 2017. The trademark is approved for use in services including “dental care; medical clinic services; sanatoriums; beauty services; health care; plastic surgery; hair transplantation; orthodontic services; medical equipment rental; and health consultation.” On November 28, 2018, Chongqing Huamei Plastic Surgery Hospital Co., Ltd. filed an invalidation request with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on the grounds that the disputed trademark infringed upon its trade name rights. On December 26, 2019, the CNIPA issued the Trademark Review and Appraisal Decision No. 224 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the appealed decision), holding that the registration of the disputed trademark did not constitute an infringement of Chongqing Huamei Company’s trade name rights and ruling to uphold the registration of the trademark.
Dissatisfied, Chongqing Huamei Company filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the revocation of the challenged ruling and an order for the CNIPA to issue a new ruling. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, in its first instance judgment, found that Chengdu Huamei Company previously owned two registered trademarks: “Huamei and Image” and “Huamei”. The “Huamei and Image” trademark was applied for registration on August 8, 2000, and approved on December 21, 2001, for use on “medical clinics; dental” services. The “Huamei” trademark was applied for registration on June 10, 2003, and approved on July 21, 2005, for use on “massage (medical); hospitals; health care; plastic surgery; hair transplant; aromatherapy; sanatoriums; rest homes; nursing (medical); psychological experts” services. Furthermore, in a previous case where Chengdu Huamei Company sued Chongqing Huamei Company for trademark infringement and unfair competition, the second instance judgment found that Chongqing Huamei Company had been using the word “Huamei” in product promotion and descriptions within the plastic surgery field since 2002. In the retrial proceedings of this case, the Supreme People’s Court issued Civil Ruling No. 222 of 2019, finding that Chongqing Huamei Company’s use of the word “Huamei” in its cosmetic surgery services had a certain influence within the Chongqing area. Therefore, the first instance court held that Chengdu Huamei Company, having already owned the aforementioned two registered trademarks “Huamei and Logo” and “Huamei,” should consider its subsequent application to register the disputed trademark “Huamei Dental” for the same or similar services as a continuation of its “Huamei” series of trademarks. The disputed trademark did not infringe upon Chongqing Huamei Company’s prior trade name rights, nor did it violate Article 32 of the Trademark Law implemented in 2014, which stipulates that “existing prior rights of others shall not be infringed.” The court dismissed Chongqing Huamei Company’s claims. Chongqing Huamei Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court. The Beijing Higher People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that, based on the findings of the Supreme People’s Court Civil Ruling No. 222 of 2019, and considering the substantial evidence provided by Chongqing Huamei Company, relevant media reports, and its publicity and usage, “Huamei” had gained a certain influence in the “plastic surgery and beauty” service sector within the Chongqing area through years of use and promotion by Chongqing Huamei Company. Therefore, Chongqing Huamei Company enjoyed prior rights to its trade name. The services for which the disputed trademark was approved for use were closely related to the “plastic surgery and beauty” services provided by Chongqing Huamei Company in terms of service purpose and content, and thus belonged to similar services. Therefore, the registration and use of the disputed trademark infringed upon Chongqing Huamei Company’s prior trade name rights. The evidence submitted by Chengdu Huamei Company was insufficient to prove that its prior “Huamei and logo” and “Huamei” trademarks had high popularity and influence, and could not serve as a reasonable basis for the registration of the disputed trademark. The court therefore revoked the first instance judgment and the appealed ruling, and ordered the CNIPA to make a new ruling. Chengdu Huamei Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court for retrial, but the appeal was rejected.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
Chengdu Huamei Company applied to the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Beijing Procuratorate) for supervision, arguing that the disputed trademark was a continuation registration of its two prior trademarks “Huamei and Design” and “Huamei”. The services such as “dental and medical clinics” approved for use by the disputed trademark are not similar to the “plastic surgery” services provided by Chongqing Huamei Company, and therefore did not infringe on the prior trade name rights of Chongqing Huamei Company.
Given the multiple disputes and intertwined legal relationships between the parties in this case, the procuratorate focused its review on the following two aspects: First, it investigated the usage of the two prior trademarks of Chengdu Huamei Company. The investigation revealed that Chengdu Huamei Company and its affiliated companies continuously used the aforementioned two trademarks on medical records and hospital signs at their business premises, and since 2011, they have widely advertised and participated in exhibitions for promotion. Multiple newspapers and online media outlets reported on these activities, proving that the two trademarks, through long-term use and promotion, have achieved high recognition and influence. Furthermore, these facts have been affirmed by multiple effective judgments. Second, it investigated the adjudication of related cases. In the case of Chengdu Huamei Company v. Chongqing Huamei Company regarding trademark infringement and unfair competition, the Supreme People’s Court, in its Civil Ruling No. (2019) 222, determined that Chongqing Huamei Company’s use of the word “Huamei” in its cosmetic surgery services had a certain influence within the Chongqing area. This essentially established that Chongqing Huamei Company had prior use of the trademark, and its use of the word “Huamei” within the original scope of cosmetic surgery services did not constitute infringement. Chongqing Huamei Company can continue to use its unregistered trademark “Huamei” within the original scope. This does not involve whether the “Huamei” trade name has any influence, nor can it presume that the “prior rights” stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law are established.
The prosecutors discussed the case collectively.
On October 11, 2024, the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate filed a protest with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. On July 25, 2025, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate filed a protest with the Supreme People’s Court, arguing that the prior use defense stipulated in Article 59, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law and the prior rights stipulated in the first half of Article 32 of the Trademark Law differ in legislative purpose and constituent elements. The prior use defense is to resolve the legality issue of self-use of an unregistered trademark with a certain influence, while the prior rights stipulated in the first half of Article 32 are to prevent trademark squatting. The degree, scope, and influence required by the two are clearly different. The relevant prior civil judgment found that Chongqing Huamei Company had prior use of the unregistered trademark “Huamei,” but this cannot be used to presume that its prior trade name rights were established. The second-instance judgment’s finding that the registration of the disputed trademark infringed on Chongqing Huamei Company’s prior trade name rights is an error in the determination of facts and the application of law.
On September 4, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court ordered the Beijing Higher People’s Court to retry the case. On December 31, 2025, the Beijing Higher People’s Court issued Administrative Judgment No. (2025) Jingxingzai 20, finding that the application for registration of the disputed trademark in services such as “dental care, medical clinic services, sanatoriums, health care, plastic surgery, hair transplantation, orthodontic services, medical equipment rental, and health consultation” did not infringe upon the relevant rights and interests of Chongqing Huamei Company’s “Huamei” trade name, and that the original judgment’s relevant findings were erroneous. The judgment revoked the first-instance and second-instance judgments and the appealed ruling, and the CNIPA was ordered to issue a new ruling.
[Typical Significance]
Trademarks and trade names are important intangible assets of enterprises, embodying the goodwill accumulated through their production and operation. This case clarifies the essential differences between the “prior rights” defense under Article 32 and the “prior use” defense under Article 59, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law in terms of legislative purpose, nature of rights, constituent elements, and legal consequences. It emphasizes the need to respect the historical evolution and current status of trademarks and trade names, and to properly handle conflicts of rights between them. Registered trademarks without malicious intent and with a stable market structure should not be easily declared invalid, and the market space for prior trade name rights formed through bona fide and lawful use should also be preserved. This case offers valuable insights for unifying the standards for adjudicating trademark authorization and confirmation cases, reasonably defining the boundaries between trademark and trade name rights, and creating a favorable business environment.
Case 2
A series of false litigation supervision cases involving copyright ownership and infringement disputes involving Fu XX and three others.
【Keywords】
Copyright disputes, false litigation, supervision by authority, and joint performance of duties.
[Basic Case Facts]
Beginning in September 2022, Cui, seeking illegal profits, selected frequently used cartoon images from various online shopping platforms. He then created vector graphics of these images using tracing and image cutout techniques, forged product descriptions, and impersonated He as the original artist. He fraudulently obtained a copyright registration certificate from the Guizhou Provincial Copyright Bureau and subsequently sold the “copyright” of the artwork. Four individuals, including Fu, purchased the “copyright” of the cartoon images from Cui. Knowing that the copyright was fraudulent, they still searched for products with the images on online shopping platforms, identified online stores, and filed civil lawsuits. Through settlements, mediations, and judgments, they obtained compensation totaling over 1 million RMB. On November 13, 2025, following a public prosecution by the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate, the court sentenced four defendants, including Fu XX, to prison terms ranging from three years and two months to two years and four months for fraud, with each also fined. On December 19, 2025, the court sentenced defendants Cui XX and He XX to prison terms of three years and five months and two years, respectively, for fraud, with each also fined, and He XX was given a suspended sentence. All criminal judgments have taken effect.
According to the facts established in the criminal judgment, the false lawsuits filed by Fu XX and others involved more than ten provinces, including Anhui and Henan. The copyright ownership and infringement dispute between Fu XX and a department store in Fengqiu County, Xinxiang City, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Department Store) is one such example. On March 13, 2024, Fu XX filed a civil lawsuit against the Department Store in the Weibin District People’s Court of Xinxiang City, claiming that he held the copyright to the artwork “Little Bear XX” and requesting the court to order the Department Store to compensate him for economic losses of RMB 10,000. On April 15, 2024, the Weibin District Court, through a small claims procedure, issued a civil judgment, finding that Fu XX purchased the copyright of “Little Bear XX” from Cui XX and obtained a work registration certificate issued by the Guizhou Provincial Copyright Bureau. The Department Store used the “Little Bear XX” image on products displayed in its online store. The court held that the work registration certificate submitted by Fu XX showed that Fu XX was the copyright owner of the artwork in question. The department store used the artwork in question in its online store without the copyright owner’s permission, allowing the relevant public to obtain the aforementioned infringing images at a time and place of their choosing, thus infringing on Fu’s right to disseminate information online. Therefore, the department store should bear the corresponding infringement liability according to law, and the court ordered the department store to compensate Fu XX for economic losses of RMB 700.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
In December 2025, the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate transferred the case of suspected fraudulent litigation involving four individuals, including Fu XX, to the procuratorates of Weibin District in Xinxiang City, Longting District in Kaifeng City, and Long’an District in Anyang City, Henan Province. The Henan Provincial People’s Procuratorate guided the three procuratorates in conducting a preliminary review and concluded that the series of cases might involve fraudulent litigation. Therefore, it initiated civil procuratorial supervision procedures ex officio. The main investigation and verification work included: First, strengthening cross-provincial cooperation to quickly obtain evidence. Criminal case files and related electronic data of Fu XX and others were retrieved, focusing on the facts and evidence established in the criminal judgments to clarify the motives, methods, and subjective malice of the crimes. Second, conducting related case searches to deeply uncover supervisory leads. Procuratorates throughout the province were guided to use “Fu XX and others as plaintiffs” and “a XX bear” as related screening criteria to search for copyright ownership and infringement disputes, identifying 22 leads of fraudulent litigation within the province and 36 leads from other provinces. The relevant information was promptly reported to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. Third, leveraging big data technology to further expand the scope of supervision. Based on the facts established in the criminal case, information on the “plaintiff” and the works involved in the case were fully extracted, and the procuratorial technical department was commissioned to conduct a comprehensive search to investigate relevant clues of false litigation and transfer them to the relevant procuratorial organs for review.
Based on the facts verified by the investigation, the procuratorial organ reviewed the case and determined that Fu XX and others, knowing that the copyright of the works in question was false, fabricated infringement facts and filed lawsuits for the purpose of obtaining illegitimate profits. This constitutes “fabricating basic facts of a civil case, fabricating a civil dispute, and filing a civil lawsuit in the People’s Court,” thus constituting false litigation. Furthermore, Fu XX and others’ subjective malice was obvious, not only harming the legitimate rights and interests of others and disrupting market competition order, but also seriously wasting judicial resources and damaging judicial authority, and should be subject to supervision according to law. As of April 2026, the Henan procuratorial organ had issued 39 prosecutorial suggestions for retrial in the series of false intellectual property litigation cases involving Fu XX and others. The courts had ruled to retry 21 cases, and the retrial judgments were reversed in 7 cases, including the aforementioned copyright ownership and infringement dispute case between Fu XX and the department store; 14 appeals were filed, and the courts had ruled to order retrials or suspend the execution of the original judgments in 9 cases.
The procuratorate and the court exchanged views and held discussions on preventing and combating malicious intellectual property litigation.
In handling cases, the Henan procuratorial organs have identified problems in the filing and trial of copyright infringement disputes, and established a collaborative mechanism with the people’s courts to prevent and combat malicious and false intellectual property litigation, thus forming a joint effort.
[Typical Significance]
Work registration certificates are crucial evidence in copyright ownership and infringement disputes. Some criminals exploit the fact that work registration only involves a formal review process, submitting false materials to fraudulently obtain registration, fabricating infringement facts to file false lawsuits, and seeking illicit gains. This seriously disrupts judicial order and constitutes false litigation. In handling criminal cases involving intellectual property fraud and false litigation, procuratorial organs should strengthen their comprehensive responsibility, simultaneously review and discover clues related to false litigation, initiate civil supervision procedures according to law, and promptly transfer cases under the jurisdiction of procuratorial organs in other regions. For intellectual property false litigation cases, procuratorial organs should conduct supervision ex officio, fully utilize their investigative and verification powers according to law, thoroughly investigate supervisory clues, and conduct precise supervision based on a comprehensive understanding of the facts of the case. For false litigation supervision cases involving multiple provinces, the advantages of integrated procuratorial functions should be fully utilized, strengthening vertical and horizontal coordination and cross-regional procuratorial cooperation, actively leveraging big data to solve the challenges of false litigation supervision, promoting cross-departmental collaboration, and striving to achieve the effect of moving from “individual case handling” to “class case supervision” and then to “systematic governance.”
Case 3
Case involving Wang XX, Wang YY, and two others for infringing trade secrets
【Keywords】
Crime of infringing trade secrets; technical investigator; non-public knowledge; commercial value assessment
[Basic Case Facts]
Jiangsu Tian XX Technology Co., Ltd. (presumably Jiangsu Cnano Technology Co., Ltd. (天奈科技)) is mainly engaged in the research, development, production and sales of nanomaterials (carbon nanotubes, graphene) and their composite materials. After years of intensive research and development, the company has developed the formulations and preparation processes for “7000” and “9200” carbon nanotube catalysts. To protect related technical secrets, the company has adopted a series of confidentiality measures, including physical isolation of R&D sites, access control and authorization for production sites, and dedicated use of company computers and email accounts for specific personnel. The company strengthens full-process management and has signed confidentiality agreements and non-competition agreements with relevant employees, clearly defining their confidentiality obligations and responsibilities.
Wang XX, Wang YY, and Wang ZZ were all former employees of Tian XX Company. From June 2012 to June 2019, during their employment, the three were responsible for the experimental operation and production of catalysts and conductive slurries, respectively, and mastered the formulations and preparation processes of the “7000” and “9200” catalysts. They had a duty of confidentiality regarding the company’s technical information. In September 2021, Wang XX and the other two joined Inner Mongolia Chang XX Nanotechnology Co., Ltd., with Wang XX serving as general manager, Wang YY as production director, and Wang ZZ as R&D engineer. The three violated the confidentiality agreement signed with Tian XX Company by taking away the “7000” and “9200” catalyst formulations and preparation processes without authorization and providing them to Chang XX Company for the production of similar products. After discussion, the three applied for a patent using the aforementioned catalyst formulations and preparation processes, resulting in the disclosure of Tian XX Company’s trade secrets. An assessment determined that the “7000” and “9200” technical information claimed by Tian XX Company was not publicly known before the patent application publication date. According to the assessment, the commercial value of the above-mentioned technical information is RMB 19.5672 million and RMB 17.8568 million respectively, totaling RMB 37.424 million.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
The prosecutor listened to the victim company explain the experimental analysis process.
In June 2023, during a visit to a high-tech enterprise, the People’s Procuratorate of Zhenjiang Economic Development Zone, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the Economic Development Zone Procuratorate) received a complaint from Tian XX Company that its trade secrets had been disclosed by others through patent applications. The procuratorate analyzed and determined that the relevant actions constituted a suspected crime of infringing trade secrets and suggested that Tian XX Company prepare evidence materials to report the case to the public security authorities. On June 20 of the same year, the Zhenjiang Economic and Technological Development Zone Branch of the Zhenjiang Public Security Bureau opened an investigation into the case. The Economic Development Zone Procuratorate initiated a mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases, suggesting that the public security authorities focus on verifying existing publicly available information such as published documents and similar patents, and commission an appraisal to determine the non-public nature and identity of the technical information involved; collect evidence materials such as Tian XX Company’s R&D records, R&D costs and revenues of the technology involved, and commission an assessment of the commercial value of the trade secrets involved; verify the organizational structure, management model, and operating conditions of Chang XX Company, and examine whether Chang XX Company was suspected of corporate crime.
On December 20, 2023, the public security authorities transferred the case to the Economic Development Zone Procuratorate for review and prosecution. The Economic Development Zone Procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, verifying that the technical information involved was not publicly known. After reviewing the evidence, visiting the rights holder’s company, verifying R&D records, consulting industry experts, and inviting technical investigators to participate in the investigation, it was determined that although publicly available documents or authorized invention patents contained similar descriptions of the formula, these publicly available materials did not fully and comprehensively disclose all the contents of the technical information involved. The formula combination and unique preparation process were technical achievements formed by the rights holder through long-term R&D and experimentation. Therefore, the technical information involved was not known to the public before the publication date of the patent application by Wang XX and the other two individuals, and thus possessed “non-public knowledge.” Second, accurately determining the commercial value of the technical secrets involved. The procuratorate communicated with the appraisal company multiple times, systematically reviewing the applicable conditions of appraisal methods such as the cost approach, market approach, and income approach, and concluded that the use of the income approach for appraisal in this case was reasonable. Third, legally determining that the case did not constitute a corporate crime. Wang XX and two others actually controlled Chang XX Company, which mainly produced infringing products and used the technical information involved in the case to apply for invention patents. Their main activity was to commit crimes, therefore they do not constitute corporate crimes.
On October 18, 2024, the Economic Development Zone Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Wang XX and two others for the crime of infringing trade secrets. On October 20, 2025, the Zhenjiang Economic Development Zone People’s Court sentenced defendants Wang XX and Wang YY to three years and nine months imprisonment and fines respectively for the crime of infringing trade secrets; and sentenced defendant Wang ZZ to three years and six months imprisonment and a fine. None of the three defendants appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.
The procuratorate, through its investigation, discovered loopholes in the trade secret protection system of Tian XX Company. It issued a social governance recommendation to the company, assisting in addressing these issues by strengthening employee education and training, improving the trade secret protection mechanism, and enhancing security technology measures. Through visits to the rights holder’s company and conducting legal education campaigns, the procuratorate helped the company enhance its awareness and capabilities in trade secret protection, safeguarding the steady and long-term development of this technology-driven enterprise.
[Typical Significance]
The procuratorial organs should earnestly fulfill their responsibility to serve innovation and development, proactively strengthen ties with innovative enterprises, closely align with their legal needs, and punish crimes infringing upon key core technologies in accordance with the law, thereby creating a sound legal environment for enterprise innovation and development. In handling cases of trade secret infringement, for overall technical solutions involving combinations of specific information such as formulas and parameters, a comprehensive review of expert opinions, publicly available literature in relevant fields, and other on-the-ground evidence should be conducted. When necessary, industry experts should be consulted, and technical investigators should be invited to provide assistance to comprehensively assess whether the overall technical solution is not publicly known. Emphasis should be placed on reviewing the scientific validity and rationality of the methods used to assess the commercial value of trade secrets. Communication with assessment institutions should be strengthened on key issues such as method selection, assessment parameters, and calculation basis to accurately determine the value of trade secrets. Problems in enterprises’ intellectual property protection should be identified, and procuratorial suggestions should be made to help enterprises improve their governance mechanisms and enhance their intellectual property protection levels.
Case 4
Tian XX illegally provided trade secrets to foreign entities.
【Keywords】
Crime of illegally providing trade secrets to foreign entities; business information; national security.
[Basic Case Facts]
The company’s business scope mainly includes the manufacturing, probing, and testing of semiconductor (silicon wafers and various compound semiconductors) integrated circuit chips, as well as development and design services related to integrated circuits. To protect relevant trade secrets, the company has implemented confidentiality measures such as signing confidentiality agreements with employees, organizing information security and confidentiality training for employees, prohibiting employees from bringing mobile phones into the office area, and controlling folder management and internet access permissions.
Tian joined a company in July 2002 and served as a senior manager in the raw materials purchasing department from March 2022 to June 2024, possessing access to operational information such as the company’s silicon wafer procurement. On March 10, 2024, Shanghai XX Tong Investment Consulting Co., Ltd., commissioned by an overseas consulting firm, A, invited Tian to participate in a paid consulting activity via video conference. Despite knowing that the consulting party was an overseas institution, Tian still accepted the paid consulting activity arranged by XX Tong Company and provided operational information such as the company’s silicon wafer procurement in 2022, including the categories, suppliers, and procurement ratios of raw materials, illegally profiting over RMB 3,600. The relevant consulting records were sent to Consulting Firm A via the internet.
Upon examination, the company’s claim regarding its 2022 silicon wafer procurement information was determined to be business information not known to the public; the information provided by Tian to overseas entities regarding the company’s 2022 silicon wafer procurement information was substantially the same as the aforementioned business information.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
The prosecutors discussed the case collectively.
On June 1, 2024, the Shanghai Municipal State Security Bureau opened an investigation into the case. The Third Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai Third Branch) promptly intervened, suggesting that the investigative authorities collect and consolidate evidence regarding the original carriers of the business information involved, confidentiality measures, non-public nature, value assessment, and the consultation methods, participants, and negotiation processes by which Tian provided trade secrets to overseas institutions. On July 19 of the same year, the Shanghai Third Branch approved the arrest of the suspect, Tian.
On September 19, 2024, the investigative authorities transferred the case to the Third Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate for review and prosecution. To solidify the determination of the non-public nature of the business information involved, the procuratorate expanded the scope of its investigation into the channels and content of the rights holder’s previous public disclosures of relevant business information, ruling out the possibility that the information had lost its non-public nature due to previous public disclosures. Furthermore, since the business information involved was compiled from scattered pieces of information, to confirm the basis for the formation of trade secrets, the procuratorate repeatedly visited the office of the rights holder’s company to examine the original carriers of the business information, reconstructing the entire process of how the original material procurement information was processed into data, thus refuting the suspect’s defense that “the disclosed information was only a general range of procurement data and did not constitute a trade secret.” Through comprehensive review of objective evidence such as chat records between employees of the consulting company and employees of overseas institutions, and IP address identification opinions, the procuratorate accurately determined that the actual entity obtaining the trade secrets was located overseas.
On December 27, 2024, the Third Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Tian for allegedly illegally providing trade secrets to foreign entities. On February 14, 2025, the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai held a closed-door trial in accordance with the law. The prosecutor clearly explained the facts and legal basis of the case, and used the case to explain the law, focusing on the fact that the leakage of the business information involved could easily affect the stability and production continuity of a certain company’s supply chain, potentially leading to interference from competitors or external forces, and its close connection with breakthroughs in key core technologies in my country. The prosecutor explained the social harm of the case, conducted courtroom education for the defendant, and prompted the defendant to plead guilty and accept punishment.
On February 20, 2025, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court sentenced the defendant, Tian, to imprisonment and a fine for illegally providing trade secrets to foreign entities. The defendant did not appeal, and the judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
Crimes involving the theft, espionage, bribery, and illegal provision of trade secrets to foreign entities severely damage enterprises’ independent research and development and innovation capabilities, threatening national security. When handling cases of trade secret infringement in key core technology areas, procuratorial organs should fully implement the overall national security concept, severely crack down on foreign commercial espionage activities according to law, effectively safeguard national technological and economic security, and protect the development of new-quality productive forces. They should accurately grasp the standards for business information to constitute trade secrets, focusing on whether the business information essentially reflects important market strategies of enterprises such as cost control, sales strategies, and development paths. A comprehensive review of the original data and information management system carriers corresponding to the confidential information should be conducted, investigating and verifying the suitability of the rights holder’s management and use of the confidential information and the confidentiality measures taken, and prudently assessing the value of the confidential information. For trade secret infringement crimes committed by foreign institutions through domestic consulting companies, substantive review of the foreign institutions should be strengthened, the characteristics of foreign elements should be analyzed and demonstrated, the flow of leaked information should be thoroughly investigated, and crimes ostensibly for commercial consulting but actually for illegal disclosure should be legally identified, thus building a higher level of security barrier.
Case 5
Copyright infringement case involving Zhong XX Green Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Wang XX, and three others.
【Keywords】
Copyright infringement, reverse engineering, computer software, determination of the amount involved in the crime.
[Basic Case Facts]
Ningbo De XX Variable Frequency Technology Co., Ltd. has independently developed, manufactured, and sold multiple new energy photovoltaic energy storage inverters since 2018, which are sold well in overseas markets. The inverter’s DSP (Digital Signal Processing) chip has built-in multiple self-developed computer software target programs, which are the company’s core technological achievements, and De XX Company owns the copyright.
From 2023 to 2024, under the decision of its actual controller, Wang XX, Zhong XX Green Energy Technology Co., Ltd. purchased multiple energy storage inverters from De XX Company, organized reverse engineering to crack the DSP chips, extracted the target program of the built-in computer software of the chips, and used it to produce similar inverters, which were then sold to overseas markets. Li XX served as the R&D director and participated in the business decision-making of the above-mentioned activities; Huang XX served as the software R&D supervisor and participated in the extraction of the target program involved in the case, and guided the production department to complete the target program burning and subsequent debugging; Fan XX served as the sales supervisor and was responsible for the sales of the infringing products.
An investigation revealed that 16 computer software target programs embedded in the DSP chips of 10 inverter models manufactured and sold by Zhong XX Company were identical or substantially identical to computer software target programs copyrighted by De XX Company. As of December 2024, Zhong XX Company had produced 2,611 inverters containing the infringing target programs, with a total value of over RMB 12.4 million. An assessment determined that the infringing target programs contributed between 24.28% and 36.91% to the software performance of these 10 inverter models, with a total value exceeding RMB 3.43 million.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
The prosecutors held a joint meeting to discuss the case.
On October 24, 2024, the Beilun Branch of the Ningbo Public Security Bureau in Zhejiang Province opened an investigation into this case. The Beilun District People’s Procuratorate of Ningbo City (hereinafter referred to as the Beilun District Procuratorate) was invited to initiate a mechanism for hearing opinions on major and complex cases. The procuratorate determined that Zhong XX Company obtained the technical information in question through reverse engineering, which did not constitute the crime of infringing trade secrets. However, without the permission of the rights holder, it copied the copyrighted computer software target program and used it to manufacture and sell similar products, which constituted the crime of copyright infringement. Regarding the issues of the rights holder’s failure to register the computer software in question and the missing parts of the software development logs, the procuratorate recommended that the public security organs focus on collecting key evidence such as the source code, initial R&D materials, software development process, and original burning records preserved by De XX Company to improve the chain of proof of copyright ownership. The procuratorate also requested that the public security organs conduct a comprehensive investigation into the source of Zhong XX Company’s computer software target program to rule out the possibility that it was independently developed or had other legitimate sources.
On June 3, 2025, the public security authorities transferred the case to the Beilun District Procuratorate for review and prosecution, using the total value of the inverters containing the infringing target program produced by Zhong XX Company as the amount of the crime. The procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, accurately determining the amount of the crime. Given that the products involved are integrated electromechanical equipment with both hardware and software, containing not only the DSP chip with the built-in infringing software but also high-value hardware such as driver boards and motherboards, it was necessary to assess the value proportion of the infringing software in the overall product to accurately determine the amount of the crime. It was recommended that the public security authorities commission an appraisal agency to assess the value of the target program of the software involved, which was determined to be RMB 3.43 million. Second, strengthening the recovery of stolen goods and mitigation of losses. Through full explanation of the law and reasoning, Zhong XX Company was prompted to voluntarily compensate, and De XX Company was guided to rationally assess the losses and the other party’s ability to pay, facilitating an agreement between the two parties on the compensation issue. The rights holder received RMB 3 million in compensation before the procuratorate filed the lawsuit. Third, accurately determining corporate crime. The infringement in this case reflected the will of the entity, and the profits belonged to the entity; therefore, Zhong XX Company was determined to have committed corporate crime.
The prosecutor appeared in court to support the prosecution.
On September 30 and October 11, 2025, the Beilun District Procuratorate filed public prosecutions against Zhong XX Company and four individuals, including Wang XX, for alleged copyright infringement. On November 28, 2025, the Beilun District People’s Court of Ningbo City sentenced Zhong XX Company to a fine for copyright infringement; and sentenced the four defendants, including Wang XX, to prison terms ranging from two to three years and three months, with fines imposed on each, and some receiving suspended sentences. Neither the defendant company nor the defendants appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
Photovoltaic products are one of the “new three pillars” of China’s foreign trade, belonging to strategic emerging industries and representing my country’s high-end manufacturing sector. Therefore, judicial protection should be strengthened in accordance with the law. The criminal acts in this case infringed upon the technological innovation achievements of photovoltaic enterprises, and the infringing products were sold overseas, damaging the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises going global. The procuratorial organs are committed to serving innovation-driven development, severely cracking down on crimes infringing on industrial software copyrights, and safeguarding the overseas expansion of China’s high-end manufacturing and new energy enterprises. For those who, for profit, obtain industrial software target programs through reverse engineering without the copyright holder’s permission, and then combine them with specific hardware to produce and sell similar products, this is legally considered copying and distributing computer software, and should be prosecuted for copyright infringement. Based on the specific circumstances of the industrial software and products involved, reasonable assessment methods should be adopted to accurately determine the amount of the crime, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. Legal explanation and reasoning should be strengthened to actively promote compensation and help rights holders recover economic losses.
Case Six
Case involving Zhang XX and three others for copyright infringement
【Keywords】
Copyright infringement, coded software, trade secrets, technical measures
[Basic Case Facts]
The drug regulatory code assignment system is an automated production and data management system that assigns a unique 20-digit identification code to the smallest sales unit and each level of packaging of drugs in accordance with national drug regulatory standards. It can realize functions such as automatic generation, printing, association, verification and reporting of drug regulatory codes to the national traceability platform. It is a mandatory technical prerequisite for the legal marketing of drugs and full-chain traceability.
Beijing Ai XX Technology Co., Ltd. mainly engages in the installation and maintenance of drug production line coding systems. It independently develops production line coding system software and holds the copyright. Ai XX Company has implemented technical protection measures for its coding system software. After installation, an authorization code is required for normal operation, and each authorization code is valid only for a single production line. After signing a contract with a client, Ai XX Company’s project engineers download the software installation package from the company’s internal website and install it on the client’s production line. Following an application through the company’s internal system and approval from the business department, the technical department generates a unique authorization code based on the software source code (not open source) and client information using an encryption algorithm. Only after verifying the installed software can the production line coding system operate normally.
From March 2015 to October 2019, Zhang XX , the regional general manager of Ai XX Company, together with his sister Zhang YY, Zheng XX , an engineer of the company, and Zhang XX, a salesman of the company, secretly established Company A. They colluded with technical personnel within Ai XX Company who had access to the source code. By bypassing the approval process to generate authorization codes and illegally copying the source code of low-version software, they modified the authorization information and cracked the encryption program to sell pirated drug production line coding software to pharmaceutical companies in Beijing and other companies. The total sales amount exceeded RMB 2 million.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
On August 8, 2023, the Chaoyang Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau initiated an investigation after receiving a report from the rights holder, Ai XX Company. The Chaoyang District People’s Procuratorate of Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the Chaoyang District Procuratorate) was invited to activate its mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases, guiding the investigation from two directions: copyright infringement and trade secret infringement. It suggested focusing on verifying evidence regarding the software’s development process, operating scenarios, and authorization procedures. Verification confirmed that Ai XX Company had taken strict confidentiality measures regarding the software’s source code and the necessary authorization code, thus possessing both the attributes of a software work and a trade secret. Simultaneously, the procuratorate guided the public security organs to compare and identify pirated software, verify internal emails within the group, collect evidence from personnel within Ai XX Company who had access to the source code, and from all buyers of the pirated software, to ascertain the specific modus operandi and the amount of money involved.
The prosecutor compared the code snippets.
On February 25, 2025, the public security authorities transferred the case to the Chaoyang District Procuratorate for review and prosecution. The procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, investigating the specific circumstances of avoiding technical measures. They visited the production line of a Beijing pharmaceutical company that used the pirated software, extracted the actual operating code and database information of the software, and compared it with the genuine software code. This revealed Zheng’s criminal method of illegally copying the source code of a lower version of the software and modifying the authorization information to crack the encryption program. Second, accurately applying the charges. Based on clarifying the nature of the software involved, the confidentiality measures taken by Ai XX Company, and the amount of illegal business, they accurately determined that Zhang XX and others’ actions constituted both the crime of infringing trade secrets and the crime of infringing copyright. Considering the specific circumstances of the case, they pursued criminal liability according to the more serious crime of copyright infringement. Third, not recognizing it as a corporate crime. After establishing the company, Zhang XX and others mainly carried out the criminal acts in this case, and the illegal gains were controlled by Zhang XX personally; therefore, it did not constitute a corporate crime. Fourth, strengthening the recovery of stolen assets and mitigation of losses. The procuratorate fully explained the law and reasoned with Zhang , Zheng XX, and Zhang ZZ, who then refunded more than 3 million yuan to Ai XX Company.
On August 29, 2025, and December 29, 2025, the Chaoyang District Procuratorate filed public prosecutions against Zhang XX , Zhang YY, Zheng XX, and Zhang ZZ for alleged copyright infringement. All four defendants pleaded guilty and accepted punishment during the first instance trial. On December 26, 2025, and January 20, 2026, the Chaoyang District People’s Court of Beijing sentenced the four defendants, including Zhang XX, to prison terms ranging from four years to ten months for copyright infringement, with fines imposed on each, and some receiving suspended sentences. None of the defendants appealed, and the judgments have taken effect.
The procuratorate visited the rights holder to understand their actual business operations and intellectual property management, conducted legal education, and issued procuratorial suggestions on social governance. They urged Company A to optimize its confidentiality system and strengthen internal management through methods such as technical encryption, communication control, and enhanced authorization mechanisms. Upon reviewing Company A’s tax information, the procuratorate discovered that Company A, controlled by Zhang XX, was using pirated software to impersonate independently developed software and applying for tax refunds, suspected of defrauding the state of tax revenue. The procuratorate promptly transferred the leads to the tax authorities.
[Typical Significance]
The “one drug, one code” pharmaceutical coding system is a crucial guarantee for implementing the national drug traceability policy, playing a vital role in ensuring that drug sources are traceable, destinations are trackable, and authenticity can be verified. Selling pirated drug regulatory code software and bypassing technical measures not only infringes on corporate intellectual property rights and hinders industrial innovation but may also endanger public medication safety. In handling cases, the procuratorate strengthens its guidance of investigations, makes good use of its own investigations, collects and extracts key evidence, improves the chain of evidence, and comprehensively investigates the facts of the case. It accurately grasps the nature of the case; for defendants who commit two crimes simultaneously—infringement of trade secrets and infringement of copyright—the procuratorate determines the charge based on the more serious crime, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The procuratorate conducts in-depth research in enterprises, using methods such as legal education and issuing procuratorial suggestions to help enterprises build a dual defense line of intellectual property protection and public medication safety, continuously ensuring that the public can feel, experience, and benefit from the procuratorate’s services, and strengthening judicial protection for people’s livelihoods.
Case 7
Wan XX Toys Co., Ltd., and three individuals including Wan XX, were charged with copyright infringement, production, and sale of obscene materials for profit.
【Keywords】
Copyright infringement, works of art, prosecution of omitted crimes, criminal incidental civil litigation
[Basic Case Facts]
Shanghai Mi XX Technology Co., Ltd. (presumably miHoYo Co., Ltd.) independently developed the online game “Genshin Impact”. The company owns the copyright to the character images such as “Klee” in the game and the figurines derived from the character images, and has registered the works.
Wan XX Toys Co., Ltd. mainly produces and processes various toy figurines. Wan XX was responsible for the overall operation and management of the company, while Zhang XX was responsible for product inventory management, delivery, and transportation. From May 2023 to March 2024, Wan XX Company, entrusted by Wu XX (dealt with in another case), processed a total of 60,431 anime figurines. It was determined that 43,668 of these figurines, which imitated foreign anime characters, were obscene materials, and the remaining 16,763 figurines were infringing products that reproduced and distributed the “Klee” character from the game “Genshin Impact” without the permission of Mi XX Company. Zhang XX Yi, employed by Wu XX, sold more than 10,000 of the aforementioned obscene figurines through online shopping platforms. After the case was uncovered, the public security authorities seized more than 6,000 infringing and obscene figurines at Wan XX Company and more than 4,000 infringing and obscene figurines in multiple warehouses managed by Zhang XX Yi.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
In late February 2024, a minor residing in Yixing City, Jiangsu Province, purchased obscene figurines online. Upon discovery, the minor’s parents reported the matter to the police. On March 10, the Yixing City Public Security Bureau opened an investigation. At the request of the public security authorities, the Yixing City People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Yixing Procuratorate) initiated a mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases, suggesting the following investigative work be prioritized: 1) verifying the equity information, personnel structure, and business model of the company involved, and clarifying the specific actions and roles of the individuals involved in the crime; 2) clarifying the source of the raw materials and molds for the anime figurines, the processing procedures, and the sales model, thoroughly investigating criminal clues, and focusing on a comprehensive crackdown; 3) legally and properly seizing relevant finished and semi-finished figurines, financial ledgers, mobile phones, computers, and other related assets and evidence. On April 30 of the same year, the Yixing Procuratorate approved the arrest of the suspect, Wan XX.
On June 28, 2024, the public security authorities transferred the case of Wan XX, Zhang XX , and Zhang YY to the Yixing Municipal Procuratorate for review and prosecution on suspicion of producing, reproducing, publishing, selling, and disseminating obscene materials for profit. During the review, the procuratorate discovered that among the anime figurines seized by the public security authorities, in addition to obscene figurines, there were also anime figurines suspected of infringing copyright. It was suspected that some crimes might have been overlooked, so the procuratorate requested the public security authorities to retrieve the relevant figurine registration certificates and conduct identity verification. After verification, the Yixing Municipal Procuratorate issued a written notice to the public security authorities to pursue the prosecution of overlooked crimes. On August 26, 2024, the public security authorities supplemented the case by transferring the case for review and prosecution on suspicion of Wan XX Company producing, reproducing, publishing, selling, and disseminating obscene materials for profit and infringing copyright, and Wan XX and Zhang XX infringing copyright.
The prosecutors held a joint meeting to discuss the case.
The procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, accurately identifying the charges. Wan XX company accepted a commission to process anime figurines, receiving molds and raw materials from the client, and charged a processing fee. Figurines imitating foreign anime characters were identified as obscene materials, and the company was prosecuted for the crime of producing obscene materials for profit; the processing of infringing figurines was prosecuted for the crime of copyright infringement. Second, accurately determining the quantity of infringing products. The number of obscene figurines transferred for review and prosecution by the public security organs was over 30,000. The procuratorate comprehensively reviewed Wan XX company’s financial records, logistics registration forms, and other objective evidence, eliminating duplicates, and comprehensively considered financial data, express delivery information, online store sales data, WeChat transaction details, and the defendant’s confession, accurately determining that Wan XX company processed 43,668 obscene figurines and 16,763 infringing figurines. Third, legally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the rights holders. A notice of litigation rights and obligations was promptly served to Mi XX company, informing them of their rights to express opinions and file a civil suit attached to the criminal case.
On October 14, 2024, the Yixing Municipal People’s Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Wan XX Company, Wan XX , and Zhang XX for alleged copyright infringement and profiting from the production of obscene materials, and against Zhang XX Yi for profiting from the sale of obscene materials. Mi XX Company filed a civil suit attached to the criminal case, demanding that Wan XX Company cease the infringement, issue an apology, and compensate for losses. Wan XX Company, Wan XX, and the other two defendants all voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment.
On December 30, 2025, the Yixing Municipal People’s Court sentenced the defendant company, Wan XX, to a fine for copyright infringement and the production of obscene materials for profit; sentenced defendants Wan XX and Zhang XX to four years and two years and four months imprisonment respectively, both with fines, for the same crimes; and sentenced defendant Zhang YY to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, with a fine, for the crime of selling obscene materials for profit. The judgment supported the incidental civil claims filed by Mi XX Company. None of the defendants appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.
[Typical Significance]
Online games are a new type of cultural industry in the digital age. Original artwork, musical works, written works, source code, and other creative works within games that meet the requirements of originality are protected by copyright law. When handling cases involving online game characters, the procuratorate should focus on examining whether the copyrights of others have been infringed. Original game character images should be legally recognized as works of art as defined by copyright law. For the creation of three-dimensional game character figurines from two-dimensional game character artworks, if the two are highly consistent in terms of shape, lines, colors, and decorations, even though the physical medium has changed from two-dimensional to three-dimensional, the figurine does not form a new, personalized expression distinct from the two-dimensional artwork; therefore, it should be considered a reproduction relationship. When handling cases of intellectual property infringement, the procuratorate should supervise and correct any omissions in accordance with the law to achieve comprehensive punishment of crimes. Actively promoting criminal incidental civil litigation to resolve criminal accountability and civil compensation issues in an integrated manner can effectively reduce the cost of rights protection and improve the efficiency of judicial case handling.
Case 8
Wang and Wei’s case of counterfeiting registered trademarks
【Keywords】
Crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks; service marks; prosecutorial technical support; cyberspace governance.
[Basic Case Facts]
The trademarks “ 
Haier” and “ 
Hisense” were approved and registered by the CNIPA for services such as installation and repair in Class 37. In December 2019, Wang and Wei jointly established Sui XX Network Technology Co., Ltd., mainly engaged in home appliance repair services. From 2022 to 2024, without obtaining permission from the registered trademark holders, Wang and Wei arranged for company employees to build counterfeit repair websites for appliance brands such as Haier and Hisense, involving 182 appliance brands. When users searched for keywords such as “**brand repair” and “**brand after-sales service” on online platforms, links to the infringing websites operated by Wang and Wei were displayed at the top of the search results. After clicking on the webpage, users contacted Sui XX Company by calling the 400 number on the webpage. The company’s customer service impersonated the official repair customer service of the brand appliances to receive orders and then contacted repair personnel to provide on-site repair services according to the user’s needs. It was found that Wang and Wei collected a total of more than RMB 19.72 million in repair service fees and illegally obtained more than RMB 8.15 million through operating the above-mentioned repair websites.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
The prosecutor and prosecutorial technical staff discuss the case.
On October 24, 2023, the Shinan Branch of the Qingdao Public Security Bureau in Shandong Province initiated an investigation into the case after receiving a report from the rights holder. Relying on the investigation supervision and cooperation mechanism, the Shinan District People’s Procuratorate of Qingdao City launched a mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases and simultaneously reported to the higher-level procuratorial organs. The municipal and district procuratorates held multiple joint meetings of prosecutors, and considering the characteristics of the case—a modus operandi of “platform promotion + telephone ordering + WeChat ordering + offline repair”—they suggested that the public security organs focus on the following investigative and evidence-gathering work: First, obtain the ownership certificates of the registered trademarks of the 182 home appliance brands involved in the case, and ascertain the registration status of the service trademarks involved in the case in Class 37, installation and repair services; second, legally obtain the electronic data of the cloud server image involved in the case, and simultaneously conduct electronic data examination and inspection to secure evidence such as website clicks and customer orders; third, classify and collect evidence according to the roles of personnel at each level in the joint crime, clarifying the direction of evidence collection for different subjects such as organizers, technicians, customer service personnel, and repair personnel.
On August 2, 2024, the public security authorities transferred the case to the Shinan District Procuratorate for review and prosecution. The procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, conducting its own investigation. It legally retrieved 12,175 pieces of data from the promotional backend of the infringing website and secured electronic data such as infringing webpage links and customer service hotline usage records, laying the foundation for data examination and comparison. Second, leveraging prosecutorial technical collaboration. It comprehensively reviewed the massive amount of electronic data stored in the retrieved cloud servers, examined the mirror data of 15 servers involved in the case, reconstructed the websites involved, identified the customer service hotline numbers involved, and compared call records with orders, constructing a complete evidentiary system for determining the amount of the crime. Third, accurately determining the circumstances of the crime. Regarding the fact that parts were replaced during the repair service, the purchase price of the products used in the repair service was legally deducted, while expenses such as labor costs and rent in the company’s operations were not deducted, accurately determining the amount of illegal gains. Wang and Wei established a company primarily engaged in counterfeit service trademark crimes, which does not constitute a corporate crime. Fourth, legally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the rights holders. We listened carefully to the rights holders’ opinions, and simultaneously explained the law to the criminal suspects, encouraging them to voluntarily plead guilty and accept punishment, actively return their illegal gains, and compensate the rights holders for economic losses of RMB 9 million.
On February 17, 2025, the Shinan District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Wang and Wei for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. On December 31, 2025, the Shinan District People’s Court of Qingdao City sentenced defendants Wang and Wei to three years and nine months imprisonment each for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and imposed fines on each of them. Neither defendant appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.
In response to the defendant’s use of online platform search functions to push infringing websites to consumers, the Shinan District Procuratorate, in accordance with the law, proposed to the online platform company to shut down links to infringing websites, optimize search engines, and set up brand selection prompts to regulate the operation of online platforms. The Qingdao Municipal People’s Procuratorate, together with the Municipal Public Security Bureau, the Municipal Market Supervision Bureau, and the Municipal Intellectual Property Protection Center, held a “Collaborative Governance Seminar on Intellectual Property Protection” focusing on the electrical appliance industry. They held discussions with representatives of home appliance companies on hot and difficult issues related to service mark protection and formulated 10 measures to strengthen the protection of brand intellectual property rights in the home appliance industry to support brand building.
[Typical Significance]
Registered service marks for home appliance brands serve to identify the source of services and embody the significant value of the professional services provided by the enterprise. Crimes involving the counterfeiting of home appliance service marks through online platforms not only damage brand reputation and harm consumers’ legitimate rights and interests but also disrupt market economic order, and should be resolutely punished according to law. In handling criminal cases of counterfeiting service marks, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law and judicial interpretations should be strictly adhered to, distinguishing between different situations where services are provided based on goods, and accurately determining the amount of illegal gains from counterfeiting service marks. Addressing the difficulties encountered in retrieving and examining electronic data during case handling, the institutional advantages of the integrated performance of duties by the procuratorate and the support of procuratorial technology should be fully utilized to actively conduct independent investigations, comprehensively retrieve electronic data, and accurately determine the criminal acts and the amount of illegal gains through methods such as inspecting mirror data of the servers involved and reconstructing the websites involved. Adhering to the principle of simultaneously punishing and preventing crime, strengthening collaborative protection of intellectual property rights, reinforcing the main responsibility of online platform enterprises, and promoting the improvement of a new pattern of co-construction, co-governance, and shared benefits in cyberspace governance.
Case Nine
Case involving Zhou XX and 24 others for counterfeiting registered trademarks, selling counterfeit goods bearing registered trademarks, and illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark labels.
【Keywords】
The crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks will be cracked down on across the entire chain, with a balance between leniency and severity, and efforts will be made to recover stolen assets and minimize losses.
[Basic Case Facts]
From 2015 to December 2023, Zhou XX, without the permission of the registered trademark holder, gathered Shi XX, Wang XX, and others to produce counterfeit perfumes, with an illegal business volume of RMB 123.5 million. Knowing that Zhou XX was producing and selling counterfeit goods, Huang XX and others still provided him with raw materials and packaging materials such as glass bottles, spray pumps, fragrances, and packaging boxes; Chen XX and Chen YY provided perfume bottle caps; Wang XX and others provided assistance such as bank accounts, transportation services, finding venues, and coordinating the handling of relevant reports. Peng XX, without the permission of the registered trademark holder, produced patches bearing the registered trademark and sold them to Zhou XX. Chen XX and others, knowing that Wang XX was selling perfumes bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, still purchased from him and sold them domestically and internationally.
From December 2023 to February 2024, the public security authorities arrested 24 suspects, including Zhou XX and Huang XX, and seized more than 170,000 counterfeit perfumes bearing the registered trademarks of 52 brands, including “ARMANI” and “DIOR”.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
On July 19, 2023, the Dongguan Municipal Public Security Bureau of Guangdong Province opened an investigation into this case and requested the procuratorate to intervene in due course. The Dongguan First District People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Dongguan First District Procuratorate) initiated a mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases, suggesting that the public security organs thoroughly investigate the upstream and downstream criminal chains, ascertain the amount of money involved in the crimes, and carry out efforts to recover stolen assets and mitigate losses.
On March 26, 2024, the public security authorities transferred the case to the Dongguan District Procuratorate for review and prosecution. The procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, it rigorously reviewed and utilized evidence to overcome the challenge of “zero confessions.” This case involved a long criminal chain and numerous individuals, with core members of the criminal gang, including Zhou XX, refusing to plead guilty. The procuratorate established connections between the suspects and the criminal facts through voiceprint identification and dialect translation. Simultaneously, it utilized objective evidence such as logistics tracks, fund flows, and WeChat chat records to accurately identify all involved personnel throughout the chain, including raw material suppliers, packaging suppliers, and lower-level distributors. This strengthened the testimony of accomplices, constructed an evidentiary system, and overcame the “zero confession” challenge. Second, it implemented tiered and categorized handling based on the roles and positions of those involved. Five organizers, commanders, and major beneficiaries, including Zhou XX, Shi XX, and Wang XX, were severely punished according to law, with relatively heavy sentencing recommendations. Three individuals, including Chen YY, who only participated in auxiliary work and pleaded guilty, were given a hearing and their opinions were publicly solicited before a decision was made not to prosecute. For other accomplices, appropriate sentencing recommendations were made in accordance with the law based on different criminal facts and circumstances. Thirdly, efforts to recover stolen assets and mitigate losses were intensified. The whereabouts of illegally obtained funds were traced, and it was recommended that the public security organs legally seize four properties involved in the case and freeze 21 bank and securities accounts, resulting in the seizure and freezing of over 80 million RMB in funds. The advantages of the leniency system for those who plead guilty and accept punishment were fully utilized, and legal explanations were strengthened, leading to the return of over 2.29 million RMB in illegal gains by 12 individuals involved in the case.
On September 25, 2024, the Dongguan District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against 21 defendants, including Zhou XX, on charges of counterfeiting registered trademarks, selling counterfeit goods bearing registered trademarks, and illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark labels. On September 15, 2025, the Dongguan First People’s Court sentenced 17 defendants, including Zhou XX, Shi XX, Wang XX, Wang YY, Huang XX, and Chen XX, to prison terms ranging from one to seven years for counterfeiting registered trademarks, and imposed fines on each; sentenced defendant Peng XX to three years and three months imprisonment for illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark labels, and imposed fines on each of the other three defendants, including Chen XX, for selling counterfeit goods bearing registered trademarks. The defendants, including Zhou XX, appealed. On December 12, 2025, the Dongguan Intermediate People’s Court ruled to dismiss the appeals and uphold the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
The procuratorial organs focus on areas closely related to people’s production and daily lives where counterfeiting and selling of counterfeit goods are rampant, cracking down on criminal activities across the entire chain, purifying the market competition environment, and striving to balance the protection of intellectual property rights with the interests of consumers. In response to the chain-like, industrialized, and cross-regional gang-related characteristics of trademark infringement crimes, as well as the covert and decentralized methods of operation such as “offline + online,” “on-demand production,” “separation of people and goods,” and “separation of production and sales,” the procuratorial organs strengthen guidance on investigation and evidence collection, solving difficulties in case handling such as evidence review, amount determination, and legal application, and striving to improve the quality and efficiency of case handling. They fully perform their procuratorial functions, supervising and guiding public security organs to thoroughly investigate upstream and downstream crimes, achieving a full-chain crackdown and completely severing the profit chain of counterfeiting and selling of counterfeit goods. They increase efforts to recover stolen goods and mitigate losses, strengthen the application of fines, and minimize the ability and conditions for criminals to commit intellectual property infringement crimes again.
Case 10
Public interest litigation case concerning the geographical indication protection of “Wenxian Iron Stick Yam”
【Keywords】
Geographical indications, administrative public interest litigation, prosecutorial recommendations, and comprehensive governance
[Basic Case Facts]
The cultivation of iron yam in Wenxian County, Henan Province, has a history of nearly 3,000 years. Wenxian iron yam possesses significant economic and regional brand value, making it a key industry for rural revitalization and wealth creation in the area. In 2003, “Wenxian Iron Yam” was granted a geographical indication product status by the former State Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. In 2012, “Wenxian Iron Yam” was approved for registration as a geographical indication certification trademark, designated for use on Class 5 yam (unprocessed Chinese medicinal materials) products; in 2014, it was further approved for registration on Class 31 yam (unprocessed edible plant roots) products. In recent years, the “Wenxian Iron Yam” geographical indication has suffered from problems such as chaotic use of the special mark, inadequate supervision, and lagging brand building, seriously affecting brand reputation and the development of the specialty industry, and infringing upon public interests.
[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]
During the 2024 “Two Sessions” of Wenxian County, Henan Province, representatives submitted suggestions regarding the market order and industrial development of Wenxian Iron Stick Yam. The Standing Committee of the Wenxian County People’s Congress transferred these suggestions to the Wenxian County People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Wenxian Procuratorate) for handling. Through visits to yam planting bases and trading markets, and by collecting data on geographical indication usage and e-commerce platform sales, the Wenxian Procuratorate legally determined that the use of the “Wenxian Iron Stick Yam” geographical indication was chaotic. Some merchants were using expired or counterfeit geographical indication logos, and some packaging companies were illegally printing geographical indication logos, seriously affecting brand reputation and value, harming consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, and infringing upon the public interest. On October 9, 2024, the Wenxian Procuratorate filed an administrative public interest litigation case.
Given that geographical indication protection involves multiple aspects such as planting standards, production and operation, and quality and safety, in order to fully build consensus and form a joint governance force, the Wenxian County Procuratorate invited representatives from the County Market Supervision Administration, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau, industry associations, enterprises, as well as representatives from the People’s Congress and the CPPCC to a symposium to analyze and assess the current situation and problems of geographical indication use, form a consensus on protection, and jointly promote the investigation and punishment of illegal and irregular activities, guide the standardized use of geographical indications, and promote the healthy development of the industry. On November 16, 2024, the Wenxian County Procuratorate issued an administrative public interest litigation procuratorial suggestion to the County Market Supervision Administration, urging it to perform its regulatory duties in accordance with the law, promptly investigate and punish illegal use of geographical indications, guide businesses to use geographical indications in a standardized manner, and promote the popularization of geographical indication knowledge.
Upon receiving the procuratorial recommendations, the administrative authorities attached great importance to the matter and actively carried out rectification: First, they organized a special campaign to “protect geographical indications with an iron fist.” Through investigation, over 300 products using counterfeit geographical indications were confiscated, 31 enterprises were urged and guided to use the relevant marks correctly, 17 packaging enterprises were instructed to print the relevant marks correctly, and 9 online stores removed 129 infringing links. Second, a unified traceability platform system for Wenxian iron yam was established. Standardized management of yam planting quality was implemented, and the four major Huai medicine associations in Wenxian were guided to verify the acreage and yield of iron yam grown by farmers. By scanning codes to query information such as the authorized entity, planting area, and pesticide residue testing, traceability was achieved through a single code, ensuring product quality. Third, legal knowledge was promoted and disseminated. A geographical indication protection manual was produced and distributed to relevant enterprises and merchants to raise awareness of the standardized use of geographical indications. Through these measures, a “1+3+N” geographical indication protection system was initially established, using Wenxian iron yam as a model and covering other characteristic agricultural products such as Huai rehmannia, Huai achyranthes, and Huai chrysanthemum, promoting a protection cluster effect.
Prosecutors visited a Chinese yam (Dioscorea opposita) planting base.
To promote the development of local specialty industries, the Wenxian County Procuratorate, in conjunction with case handling, formulated a research report on the development and brand protection of the Wenxian iron yam industry, proposing countermeasures and suggestions, which were submitted to the Wenxian County People’s Congress Standing Committee and then forwarded to the Jiaozuo Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee. In June 2025, the Jiaozuo Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee reviewed and approved the “Regulations on the Protection and Development of the Four Major Huai Medicines of Jiaozuo City,” which explicitly incorporated the suggestions from the research report regarding strengthening geographical indication protection, improving product traceability management, and refining the division of responsibilities among departments.
[Typical Significance]
Geographical indication products are a strong support for local characteristic industries and an important vehicle for promoting the comprehensive revitalization of rural areas. In practice, some geographical indications suffer from problems such as irregular use and inadequate management, affecting their brand value, harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and infringing upon the public interest. The procuratorial organs, in accordance with the law, fulfill their administrative public interest litigation responsibilities, comprehensively performing their duties through methods such as symposiums and consultations, issuing procuratorial suggestions, and establishing collaborative mechanisms. This consolidates the protective efforts of all parties, collaboratively promotes the standardization of market order, and safeguards the brand reputation of geographical indication products. They also diligently handle suggestions from National People’s Congress deputies, strengthen investigation and research, summarize and analyze findings, and promptly submit reports to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. By handling cases, they promote local legislation, transforming geographical indication protection into a driving force for prosperity, achieving the organic unity of the political, legal, and social effects of judicial case handling, and serving rural revitalization with high-quality and efficient procuratorial performance.
