On April 20, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Typical Intellectual Property Cases of People’s Courts in 2025 (2025年人民法院知识产权典型案例). The release took place during the court’s annual Intellectual Property Publicity Week press conference, where Vice President Tao Kaiyuan presented ten selected cases spanning trademark, patent, copyright, trade secret, and unfair competition disputes. The selections were drawn from decisions issued by courts at various levels, including the Supreme People’s Court itself, specialized intellectual property courts, and intermediate and basic-level courts across multiple provinces.
In the Chinese legal system, “typical cases” are a category of judicial guidance distinct from both ordinary decisions and “guiding cases” formally issued under the Supreme People’s Court’s case guidance system. Typical cases are curated by the Supreme People’s Court or lower courts to illustrate the application of law in particular subject areas, highlight adjudication methodology, and signal judicial policy priorities. While typical cases do not carry the binding reference status that guiding cases possess under the 2010 Provisions on Case Guidance Work, they are routinely consulted by judges, practitioners, and administrative agencies as persuasive authority on how courts are likely to analyze similar disputes.
For intellectual property practitioners, the annual typical cases release offers a view of the Supreme People’s Court’s current views on contested doctrinal questions—such as claim construction in the electronics field, distinctiveness of phrase-type trademarks, punitive damages in cases with parallel criminal proceedings, and the treatment of data scraping and malicious trademark registration—and indicates the types of conduct the courts intend to address through civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement.
A translation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
Case 1
Administrative Case on Distinctiveness Assessment of Phrase-Type Trademarks—Pan XX Co., Ltd. v. China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) – Trademark Application Rejection Review Administrative Dispute
Supreme People’s Court （2025）最高法行再200号
[Basic Case Facts]
On June 24, 2021, Pan XX Co., Ltd. (presumably Penhaligon’s) applied to the CNIPA for registration of the trademark 乔治勋爵的悲剧 (Lord George’s Tragedy), designating its use on goods such as eau de toilette, cologne, and perfume in Class 3. In the relevant industry, trademarks (in Chinese characters) such as “Madame Pompadour’s Teacup,” “The Secret of the Flower Princess,” “Miss Sophie’s Diary,” and “Madame Audley’s Secret” have already been registered for perfume products. Since 2020, Pan XX Co., Ltd. has been selling perfumes under the “Lord George’s Tragedy” brand in China. Numerous consumers and media outlets on various online platforms have used “Lord George’s Tragedy” to refer to specific perfumes launched by Pan XX Co., Ltd. Regarding Pan XX Co., Ltd.’s trademark registration application, the CNIPA, after examination, determined that the trademark “Lord George’s Tragedy” consists of a phrase, is designated for use on goods such as perfume, and is unlikely to be easily recognized as a trademark by the relevant public. The trademark is insufficient to distinguish the source of goods and falls under the category of lacking distinctiveness as stipulated in Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the CNIPA decided to reject the trademark registration application. Pan XX Co., Ltd., dissatisfied with the decision, filed an administrative lawsuit. The court of first instance held that the trademark lacked distinctiveness and dismissed Pan’s lawsuit. Pan appealed. The court of second instance upheld the original judgment. Pan then applied to the Supreme People’s Court for a retrial.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its retrial, held that the phrase “Lord George’s Tragedy” is not a fixed collocation of words or phrases in everyday life; its composition, meaning, and pronunciation are unique, and its constituent elements are not common or habitual symbols in the perfume industry, yet the whole phrase possesses distinctive features. Furthermore, when used as a trademark on perfumes and other goods, “Lord George’s Tragedy” is neither a promotional term or descriptive phrase related to the goods, nor is it associated with the function, purpose, or other characteristics of the perfumes or other goods. Looking at trademark registration in related industries, many trademarks with similar styles have already been approved for registration. Based on the evidence on file, the relevant public has already used “Lord George’s Tragedy” to refer to a specific perfume, making it easily regarded as a mark indicating the source of the goods. Therefore, the “Lord George’s Tragedy” trademark, when used on perfumes and other goods, can effectively identify the source of the goods and possesses inherent distinctive features. Therefore, the court ruled: the first and second instance judgments and the appealed decision are revoked; the CNIPA is ordered to make a new decision.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of the determination of distinctiveness of phrase trademarks. The judgment in this case clarified the criteria for judging the distinctiveness of phrase trademarks, accurately grasped the legal essence of distinctiveness and the actual situation of market development, balanced the registration freedom of business entities with the public interest, left room for brand cultivation, and effectively stimulated the innovation vitality of market entities.
Case 2
Chip Invention Patent Infringement Case – Mao XX (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Xin XX System Co., Ltd., et al., Dispute over Invention Patent Rights Infringement
Supreme People’s Court （2023）最高法知民终2903号
[Basic Case Facts]
Chengdu Xin XX System Co., Ltd.is the patentee of the invention patent in question. Xin XX Company claims that Mao XX (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd. infringed upon its patent rights by manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling power management chips. Xin XX Company filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order Mao XX Company and related distributors to cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10 million RMB. The court of first instance held that the circuit module in the accused infringing technical solution constituted equivalent technical features to the pulse signal generation feature in claim 1 of the patent in question, and that the accused infringing technical solution fell within the protection scope of claim 1 of the patent in question. The court ruled that Mao XX Company and related distributors should immediately cease infringement and compensate Xin XX Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.2 million RMB. Mao XX Company appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance ruling, held that when interpreting the scope of protection of patent claims in the electrical field involving logic circuits, the focus should be on understanding the logical connections, signal flow, and control timing between the various technical features, avoiding interpreting technical features in isolation from their logical chain. In this case, understanding the pulse signal generation feature in the patent claim should be based on the perspective of a person skilled in the art, starting from the overall technical solution of the claim, combined with the content of the specification and drawings, common knowledge in the field, and the characteristics of claim drafting, for a comprehensive understanding. The circuit module in the accused infringing technical solution is different from the pulse signal generation feature in claim 1 of the patent in question in terms of means, function, and effect. The two do not constitute the same feature nor equivalent features. The accused infringing technical solution does not possess the pulse signal generation feature and does not fall within the scope of protection of claim 1 of the patent in question. Therefore, the court ruled: the first instance judgment is reversed, and the lawsuit filed by Xin XX Company is dismissed.
[Typical Significance]
This case involves a patent infringement dispute related to chip technology. Power management chips are the heart of electronic devices’ power supply and play a crucial role in new energy vehicles, energy storage, and industrial fields. The judgment in this case clarifies the factors to consider in interpreting patent claims and determining equivalent infringement in this relevant field, providing a judicial model for similar cases and representing a beneficial exploration in ensuring both public interest and incentives for innovation.
Case 3
Trademark Infringement Case of Reselling Refurbished Switches – XX Technology Company v. Zhou XX et al., Trademark Infringement Dispute
Beijing Haidian District People’s Court （2023）京0108民初31466号
[Basic Case Facts]
A technology company is the trademark owner of the series of registered trademarks involved in this case. These trademarks are approved for use on goods such as program-controlled telephone exchange equipment and computer network switches in Class 9. The three defendants, including Zhou, purchased second-hand exchange equipment and components at low prices, organized multiple people to carry out refurbishment activities such as disassembly, cleaning, component replacement, serial number alteration, and repainting, and affixed the registered trademark labels involved in the case. The defendants, Beijing Zhu XX System Integration Co., Ltd. and its affiliated companies, established by Zhou and the other two, sold the aforementioned counterfeit products under the guise of new equipment. The Haidian District People’s Procuratorate of Beijing filed a public prosecution, and the Haidian District People’s Court of Beijing rendered a criminal judgment, finding Zhu XX Company and Zhou et al. guilty of counterfeiting registered trademarks and imposing corresponding fines. The Technology Company argued that, in addition to the four defendants including Zhou, two others, including Chen XX, also participated in the sale and distribution of the infringing products and provided account support for transferring infringing funds. All six defendants engaged in intellectual property infringement for a living, profiting greatly, and should bear civil liability for infringement and be subject to punitive damages. Therefore, the Technology Company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit.
[Judgment Result]
The Haidian District People’s Court of Beijing held in its first instance judgment that if the same infringing act has already been subject to administrative fines or criminal penalties and the penalties have been fully executed, the court will not support the defendant’s claim for reduction or exemption of punitive damages. However, the court may take this into consideration when determining the multiple of punitive damages. In this case, the six defendants, without the permission of a certain technology company, for the purpose of sales profit, cooperated in a division of labor to purchase second-hand switches and components through online and other channels, refurbished them, affixed commercial marks that were substantially identical or similar to the series of registered trademarks of the certain technology company, and sold them as new equipment, thus jointly infringing on the trademark rights enjoyed by the technology company. Given that the technology company’s series of registered trademarks were once recognized as well-known trademarks in program-controlled telephone exchange equipment, possessing high brand recognition; that the defendants systematically and organizedly cooperated, forming a complete infringement chain with covert and egregious methods; and considering the prior criminal judgment and the parties’ admissions, the defendants had sold thousands of infringing products, demonstrating a large scale and high profits, with the seized unsold infringing products valued at over 5.4 million RMB, the court held that the defendants’ actions constituted malicious infringement and were serious in nature, warranting punitive damages. Taking into account factors such as some defendants having already paid fines imposed in the criminal judgment, the court applied triple punitive damages to each defendant, ultimately fully supporting the technology company’s claims and ordering the six defendants to jointly compensate for economic losses of 20 million RMB and pay reasonable expenses of 100,000 RMB. After the first-instance judgment, some defendants appealed but later withdrew their appeals; the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of applying punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes involving both criminal and civil aspects. When the same infringing act is found to constitute a crime, and the people’s court determines it also constitutes a civil infringement, punitive damages can be applied according to law, conveying a judicial orientation of severely cracking down on serious infringements. The judgment in this case accurately grasped the circumstances for applying punitive damages, considered the fines in the criminal judgment, and reasonably determined the multiple of punitive damages, reflecting the legal principle of proportionality between offense and penalty.
Case 4
Criminal Case of Collusion Between Internal and External Parties to Improperly Obtain Trade Secrets—Case of Zhang XX and Fourteen Others for Infringing Trade Secrets
Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court （2024）沪03刑初67号
[Basic Case Facts]
Zhang, formerly the head of the radio frequency chip development department at Shanghai Hai XX Technology Co., Ltd., established Zun XX Communication Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Zun XX Communication Technology Co., Ltd. after leaving the company. Before and after the company’s establishment, Zhang recruited Zhou and others who were working at Hai XX Company to join Zun XX Company. These individuals jointly decided to develop chips similar to those of Hai XX Company. To shorten the R&D cycle, quickly achieve mass production, and accelerate fundraising, Zhang instructed Zhou and three others to continue recruiting Hai XX Company employees to join Zun XX Company. Gao and seven others, knowing that Hai XX Company had taken confidentiality measures, still obtained Hai XX Company’s technical information, either independently or in collusion with other Hai XX Company employees, for use in Zun XX Company’s chip R&D before and after leaving the company. Zhao and Tu, while working at Hai XX Company, also provided Zun XX Company with Hai XX Company’s technical information at the company’s request. After learning that Hai’s company was preparing to file an infringement lawsuit, Zhang instructed Zhou and others to cover up the illegality of Zun’s chip R&D technology information source by deleting allegedly infringing data from the server, replacing and destroying the server hard drive, and arranging for employees to sign so-called “letters of commitment.” The Third Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate charged Zhang and 14 others with the crime of infringing trade secrets and filed a public prosecution with the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai.
[Judgment Result]
The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court, in its first instance judgment, held that Zhang and others, knowing that Hai XX Company had strict confidentiality measures regarding trade secrets and that they, as external personnel, had no right to access such trade secrets, still used explicit or implicit means, offering high salaries to induce Hai Company’s internal employees to illegally provide the corresponding trade secrets to external personnel through browsing, downloading, copying, and screenshotting. This constituted a gang-related act of illegally obtaining the trade secrets of the rights holder, Hai XX Company, and the circumstances were particularly serious; their actions constituted the crime of infringing trade secrets. In this case, the investigation agency commissioned an asset appraisal company to assess the reasonable licensing fee for the technical information involved in the case as over 317 million RMB, which was reasonable and could be used to determine the amount of loss. In determining liability, considering that Zhou and the other two, as senior managers of Zun XX Company, played an organizational, managerial, and commanding role in the entire joint criminal activity, and that the chip components were inseparable and closely linked, these three not only participated in and managed their respective parts but also cooperated and coordinated with professionals in other fields on design issues. Therefore, these three, as principal offenders, should also bear full responsibility for the crime. Furthermore, considering the roles and positions of each defendant in the joint crime, the corresponding amounts of the secrets involved, whether they were employed by Zun XX Company, their employment dates, job responsibilities, salaries, and shareholdings, the court ruled that all fourteen defendants were guilty of infringing trade secrets and sentenced them accordingly. The first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example involving the protection of trade secrets related to cutting-edge technologies. The judgment accurately addresses issues such as the characterization of the defendants’ actions and the standards for determining licensing fees in crimes of infringing trade secrets, severely punishing the behavior of former employees who improperly seize the innovative achievements of others, and demonstrating the firm resolve of the people’s courts to strictly protect scientific and technological innovation achievements in accordance with the law.
Case 5
Malicious Poaching and Unfair Competition Case – Ke XX Co., Ltd. v. Zhui XX Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province（2025）苏05民终1693号
[Basic Case Facts]
Ke XX Co., Ltd. and Zhui XX Co., Ltd. , along with their affiliated companies, are competitors in the same industry. Ke XX Company and Zhui XX Company previously had a trade secret infringement dispute due to the employment of each other’s employees, and reached a “Settlement Agreement” regarding employee recruitment, stipulating that “neither party will directly or indirectly employ any of the other party’s current employees, employees who have left within the past six months, or employees with non-compete obligations.” Subsequently, Zhui XX Company still recruited more than twenty former employees of Ke XX Company, including department heads and senior technical executives, and provided these employees with measures to circumvent their non-compete obligations. Ke XX Company argued that this behavior violated the principles of good faith and business ethics, constituting unfair competition, and therefore filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order Zhui XX Company to immediately cease its unfair competition, issue an apology, and compensate for losses of 2 million RMB. The court of first instance dismissed Ke XX Company’s claims. Ke XX Company appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, in its second instance judgment, held that Zhui XX Company and Ke XX Company had previously engaged in a trade secret infringement dispute over the employment of each other’s employees and reached a “Settlement Agreement.” Zhui XX Company should have exercised due diligence in hiring former employees of Ke XX Company and its affiliated companies, such as proactively verifying whether the hired employees were former employees of Ke XX Company and its affiliated companies, or proactively notifying the other party and taking relevant corrective measures upon becoming aware of such cases. However, Zhui XX Company failed to comply with the “Settlement Agreement,” continuing to employ more than twenty former employees of Ke XX Company and using third parties to sign labor contracts, pay wages, pay social security contributions, promise high salaries, and provide breach of contract compensation to help these employees evade non-compete obligations. This constituted malicious “poaching” of employees knowingly or should have known that the former employees had non-compete obligations. Zhui XX Company’s actions resulted in the successive departures of numerous senior managers and technical personnel of Ke XX Company, weakening Ke XX Company’s competitive advantage, increasing its operating costs, and disrupting normal market competition order, and should be deemed as constituting unfair competition. Therefore, the judgment is as follows: the first-instance judgment is overturned, and the company is ordered to immediately cease its unfair competition and compensate the company for losses of RMB 1 million.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of combating unfair competition through malicious poaching. Malicious poaching essentially seeks short-term gains at the expense of competitors’ legitimate rights, ultimately severely disrupting the innovation order. The judgment in this case legally recognized such behavior as unfair competition, clearly supporting honest businesses, effectively curbing disorderly competition such as malicious poaching, guiding businesses back to healthy competition focused on technological innovation and quality improvement, and providing strong judicial protection for comprehensively addressing “involutionary” competition and creating a sound market ecosystem.
Case 6
Unfair Competition Case Involving Data Scraping from Online Platforms – Zhejiang Tao XX Network Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tian XX Network Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Man XX Network Co., Ltd., et al.
Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province （2024）浙02民初562号
[Basic Case Facts]
Zhejiang Tao XX Network Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tian XX Network Co., Ltd. operate an e-commerce platform. The platform stores a large amount of product data, including product names, product IDs, product images, prices, and promotional information. Tao XX Company and Tian XX Company have entered into merchant service agreements with operators within the platform, stipulating that, with the authorization of the operators, they legally possess the aforementioned product data and enjoy the commercial benefits of partially utilizing and processing the relevant data within the authorized scope. They have also adopted a series of management measures, including a “Legal Statement” and the Bots Exclusion Protocol, explicitly prohibiting unauthorized data acquisition. The defendants, including Zhejiang Man XX Network Co., Ltd., obtained user cookies from the e-commerce platform through price comparison plugins and other technical means, bypassing various anti-scraping protection measures of the two e-commerce platforms to obtain some product data. They then provided data products and services on Man XX Company’s own website/platform for a fee. Tao XX Company and Tian XX Company subsequently filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the defendants to cease the aforementioned data scraping and use and to compensate for economic losses of 20 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province held in the first instance that, according to the merchant service agreement and the authorization of the operators within the platform, Tao XX Company and Tian XX Company enjoyed operational interests in the data of the products in question. The key to balancing interests in data unfair competition cases lies in distinguishing between the legitimacy of the means of data acquisition and the reasonableness of the data usage scenario. For publicly available data, the boundary between fair use and improper acquisition should be clearly defined; for conditionally disclosed data, the scope of authorization, agreement, and usage method should be examined; for non-public data, technical and legal protection should be strengthened. The defendants used technical means to bypass the risk control mechanism of a certain e-commerce platform, exceeding normal access permissions, and massively crawled the data of the products in question in a manner simulating the needs of ordinary users. This hindered and interfered with the normal operation of the platform, impeded its security and risk control mechanisms, and infringed on the privacy of some ordinary consumers, constituting unfair competition. The data products or services developed by the defendants, such as “price monitoring,” “market analysis,” and “customized APIs,” contain inaccurate and low-quality data, and facilitate unreasonable price control by some corporate users. This inevitably harms consumer rights and market competition order, ultimately hindering the healthy development of the data market and harming the public interest. The aforementioned data usage also constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendants cease their unfair competition practices, compensate Tao XX and Tian XX for economic losses of 5 million RMB, and eliminate the negative impact. The first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of commercial data rights protection, reflecting the concept of tiered protection of data rights. Addressing different data types, such as public and non-public data, commercial data and personal information, the judgment in this case delineates different levels and clarifies the legal boundaries of data acquisition and use. This approach prevents data monopolies, curbs malicious scraping and misuse, and balances the legitimate rights and interests of all parties involved in data elements. It vividly demonstrates the people’s courts’ proactive response to the legal needs of the digital economy and their commitment to safeguarding innovative development.
Case 7
Case involving the connection between civil and criminal law in the case of counterfeiting registered trademarks—Deng XX’s case of counterfeiting registered trademarks
Yiyuan County People’s Court, Shandong Province（2025）鲁0323刑初24号
[Basic Case Facts]
During the trial of a trademark infringement dispute, the Yiyuan County People’s Court of Shandong Province discovered that the purchase invoices and other materials provided by the defendant, Li, indicated that the infringing goods originated from Deng, whose actions were suspected of constituting a criminal offense. The court transferred the case to the public security authorities. Based on the leads, the public security authorities successfully cracked Deng’s case of counterfeiting registered trademarks. Investigation revealed that from 2016 to 2024, without the permission of Fujian Nanping Nan XX Battery Co., Ltd., Deng purchased unpackaged batteries, paper cards printed with counterfeit trademarks, battery casings, and other packaging materials from others, assembled counterfeit batteries, and sold them, constituting a particularly serious offense. The Yiyuan County People’s Procuratorate of Shandong Province prosecuted Deng for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. During the trial at the Yiyuan County People’s Court, Deng voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, compensated Fujian Nanping Nan XX Battery Co., Ltd. for economic losses of 400,000 RMB, and obtained their forgiveness.
[Judgment Result]
The Yiyuan County People’s Court of Shandong Province, in its first instance judgment, held that Deng XX, without the permission of the registered trademark owner, used a trademark identical to another’s registered trademark on the same type of goods, and the circumstances were particularly serious. His actions constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and he should be held criminally liable. The charges and facts of the crime alleged by the public prosecutor were established. Deng XX, after being summoned by the public security organs, truthfully confessed to the crime upon arrest, which constitutes surrender and warrants a lighter punishment according to law. Deng XX voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, which also warrants leniency according to law. Deng XX compensated the victimized unit for economic losses and obtained the victimized unit’s forgiveness, demonstrating remorse, which also warrants a discretionary reduction in punishment. Therefore, the court sentenced Deng XX to three years imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and fined him 200,000 RMB. The court also ordered the destruction of the infringing products. The first instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of the reform of the integrated trial mechanism for civil, administrative, and criminal intellectual property cases. After discovering criminal leads while handling a civil dispute, the People’s Court promptly transferred the case, ultimately holding the perpetrators of the infringing acts criminally liable. This effectively integrated civil rights protection with criminal prosecution, completely severing the profit chain of counterfeiting and selling counterfeit goods, and significantly improving the effectiveness of punishment and prevention.
Case 8
“Internet troll” commercial defamation case – Xuchang City Pang XX Commercial Group Co., Ltd., Yu XX, and Chai XX et al., – a commercial defamation and reputation dispute case.
Intermediate People’s Court of Xuchang City, Henan Province（2025）豫10知民初38号
[Basic Case Facts]
Xuchang Pang XX Trading Group Co., Ltd. and its affiliated companies, adhering to the business philosophy of “returns if not satisfied” and “genuine products for genuine customers,” have continuously expanded their business scale and gained consumer recognition. Yu XX is the founder and legal representative of Pang XX Company. Starting in March 2025, Chai XX, using the account “Chai XX Dui” registered under Wen XX’s real name, continuously posted videos on multiple online social media platforms concerning Pang XX Company’s profit model, product quality, corporate reputation, and Yu XX’s personal reputation, maliciously defaming and slandering Pang XX Company and Yu XX, and using this opportunity to attract followers and drive sales, creating a competitive advantage for its affiliated companies, Wenzhou XX Jewelry Co., Ltd. and Wuhan XX Jewelry Co., Ltd. Pang XX Company and Yu XX believe that the above actions constitute commercial defamation and infringe upon their right to reputation, and therefore filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the four defendants to delete the infringing videos, issue a written apology and publish the apology on the video account, and compensate for various losses totaling 6 million yuan.
[Judgment Result]
The Intermediate People’s Court of Xuchang City, Henan Province, held in the first instance that Chai’s actions of fabricating and disseminating false and misleading information caused undue suspicion among the public towards Pang XX Company, damaging the public trust that Pang XX Company had built up over many years, resulting in the return of some of Pang XX Company’s products, and indirectly negatively impacting the sales of other products, thus disrupting the normal market competition order. Chai’s actions constituted commercial defamation. Chai XX used insulting and vulgar language to publish false negative remarks targeting a certain person, constituting acts of insult and defamation. Objectively, this led to a negative perception of the person’s character and reputation among the public, lowering their social evaluation. Chai’s actions constituted an infringement of the person’s right to reputation. Wen XX, after lending his social media account, neither fulfilled his supervisory obligations to verify the account usage nor took remedial measures such as canceling the account, nor did he stop the infringement. Wenzhou XX Jewelry Co., Ltd. and Wuhan XX Jewelry Co., Ltd., in order to enjoy the traffic benefits brought by the infringement and obtain illegitimate commercial profits, tolerated the false information published by Chai XX and were therefore at fault. The aforementioned actions, combined with the alleged actions of Chai XX, resulted in the same harmful consequences, constituting joint tort. Therefore, the court ruled that the four defendants must cease their infringement, delete the infringing videos, issue an apology statement on their video accounts, and compensate Pang XX Company and Yu XX for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.6 million yuan. The first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of regulating online commercial defamation in accordance with the law. The judgment in this case severely punished the commercial defamation behavior of “online trolls” who spread rumors and hype for profit, clarified the boundary between public opinion supervision and malicious infringement, and has positive significance for boosting entrepreneurs’ confidence in development, purifying the online ecosystem, and continuously optimizing the business environment.
Case 9
Copyright Infringement Case Involving the Online Sale of Pirated E-books—XX Information Technology Company v. XX Publishing Group Co., Ltd. and Su XX: Dispute over Infringement of the Right to Disseminate Works via Information Networks
Changde Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province（2024）湘07知民终25号
[Basic Case Facts]
XX publishing group company holds the right to disseminate the books in question online. Su XX operates a shop called “Xin XX Bookstore” on an e-commerce platform operated by an information technology company (hereinafter referred to as “the Information Company”). The XX Publishing Company repeatedly sent lawyer’s letters to the XX Information Company, specifying that all e-books of the company’s published books sold on its e-commerce platform were pirated, demanding that the Information Company take measures such as closing the shop, and attaching the names of the e-books in question. However, pirated e-books of the books in question were still being sold in Su’s shop. The XX Publishing Company then filed a lawsuit, requesting a judgment ordering Su XX to immediately cease selling the e-books in question, and that Su XX and the XX Information Company jointly compensate it for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10,000 RMB. After the case was accepted in the first instance, the XX Information Company banned the sale of the products in question. The court of first instance ruled that Su XX should compensate the XX Publishing Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2,000 RMB; the XX Information Company should bear joint and several liability for the aforementioned debt. The XX Information Company appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Changde Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province, in its second instance judgment, held that the XX information company, knowing that operators selling e-books on its platform needed to register as market entities and obtain a “Publication Business License,” and having formulated corresponding qualification requirements, failed to fulfill its supervisory obligations. It neither set up business categories such as electronic publications or e-books, nor did it display the qualification requirements on its merchant help center webpage, and it failed to properly guide and regulate the e-book sales activities of operators on the platform; it allowed operators to operate without verifying their qualifications upon entry; and it failed to fulfill its verification, update, and dynamic monitoring obligations after entry. Furthermore, despite multiple legal letters from a publishing company, the XX information company still failed to take necessary measures. Therefore, it should bear joint liability with the operators on the platform. The court thus ruled: the appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of an e-commerce platform selling pirated e-books. The evidence in this case proves that if an e-commerce platform operator knew or should have known that a user was using its network services to infringe upon the civil rights of others, and failed to take necessary measures, it should be held jointly liable under Article 1197 of the Civil Code. This judgment emphasizes that the platform’s primary responsibility should be further strengthened, its internal management mechanisms need further improvement, and efforts should be made to continuously enhance the platform’s governance level.
Case 10
Case of Unfair Competition Due to Repeated Malicious Trademark Registration – Guangzhou Gu XX Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. v. Lan XX Beer (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Jin XX Trading Co., Ltd.
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court（2025）粤73民终656号
[Basic Case Facts]
Lan XX Beer (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. has been granted registration of the “Lan Mei” and “Lan Mei Gold” series of trademarks since 2001, approved for use on beer and other goods. The “Lan Mei” series of trademarks has gained a certain degree of brand recognition through continuous promotion. Guangdong Jin XX Trading Co., Ltd. , a competitor in the beer industry, repeatedly entrusted Guangzhou Gu XX Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. to apply for registration of more than ten trademarks, including “Lanwei Beer,” “Lanmei Beer,” “Zhenghan Lan Mei,” and “Lanwei Gold Can,” between 2017 and 2022, and licensed two of these trademarks to others. Currently, the CNIPA and the People’s Court have ruled that the aforementioned series of trademarks applied for registration by Jin’s company are similar to Lan’s “Lanmei” series of trademarks used on the same or similar goods. Furthermore, the People’s Court has ruled that Jin’s applications to register trademarks such as “一起嗨啤” (Yiqi Haipi), “蓝魅啤” (Lanmei Beer), “蓝味啤” (Lanwei Beer), “百英” (Baiying), and “哈冰” (Habing) demonstrate a clear intent to copy or plagiarize well-known trademarks, violating the principle of good faith and significantly disrupting the normal order of trademark registration, use, and management. This falls under the category of “obtaining registration by other improper means” as stipulated in the Trademark Law. Therefore, all of Jin’s applications to register the aforementioned series of trademarks have been rejected, denied registration, or declared invalid. Lan believes that Jin’s applications to register trademarks identical or similar to Lan’s trademarks, and that Gu’s agency’s provision of agency services to Jin constitute unfair competition. Lan filed a lawsuit, requesting that Jin and Gu immediately cease their unfair competition, that Jin compensate Lan for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1 million RMB, and that Gu’s agency bear joint and several liability for 250,000 RMB of that amount. The first-instance judgment held that Jin’s company’s trademark application and licensing to others constituted unfair competition, and that Gu’s agency company constituted contributory infringement and should bear joint liability with Jin’s company. The judgment ordered Jin’s company to compensate Lan’s company 500,000 RMB, and Gu’s agency company to bear joint liability for damages up to 100,000 RMB. Gu’s agency company appealed.
[Judgment Result]
The Yuexiu District People’s Court of Guangzhou City held in the first instance that Lan’s “Lanmei” series of registered trademarks, through continuous use and promotion, had already gained a certain influence at the time of the trademark registration in question. Lan’s company legally enjoyed prior rights to the “Lanmei” series of registered trademarks. Multiple prior court judgments and rulings from the CNIPA have determined that Jin’s company’s application for registration of the series of trademarks constituted large-scale trademark hoarding, lacked legitimacy, and damaged the fair competitive market order. As a competitor in the same industry, Jin’s company, knowingly and repeatedly applied for registration of trademarks similar to Lan’s “Lanmei” series of registered trademarks, clearly exceeding the needs of normal production and operation, and demonstrating an intent to exploit Lan’s goodwill and seek illegitimate profits. This constituted malicious trademark registration, and licensing two of the trademarks to others constituted trademark hoarding for profit. Jin’s company violated the principle of good faith, disrupted the fair competitive market order, and damaged Lan’s legitimate rights and interests, constituting unfair competition. As a professional trademark agency located in the same region as Lan’s company, Gu’s agency should have been aware of the reputation of the “Lanmei” series of registered trademarks. After its agency’s registration of the “Lanmei Beer” trademark was rejected, and especially after the court’s negative evaluation of Jin’s company’s registration, Gu’s agency, knowing that Jin’s company was maliciously registering the trademark, still accepted Jin’s commission to provide trademark agency services, constituting contributory infringement. Therefore, Gu’s agency should bear joint liability with Jin’s company. Hence, the above-mentioned first-instance judgment was made. After Gu’s company appealed, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the first-instance judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case is a typical example of applying the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate the continuous and repeated malicious registration of trademarks. The judgment in this case negates the previous judgment’s finding that the act constituted malicious trademark registration, yet the individual continued to repeatedly and extensively apply for trademark registration. It also holds the agencies involved in the trademark registration chain accountable, which helps to combat malicious trademark registration and maintain a fair and competitive market order.
