Weekly China Brand Protection News

May 10, 2025

1. Zhen Kung Fu Trademark Invalidation Case

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) ruled on an invalidation request filed by Bruce Lee Enterprises regarding the “Kungfu and Design” and “” trademarks (“Disputed Marks”). The ruling determined that: The Disputed Marks are nearly identical to the image and classic poses of Bruce Lee, a renowned Chinese martial arts master. Using this trademark for designated services would likely cause consumers to misidentify the source of services, thus violating Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Trademark Law (deceptive and likely to mislead the public). The Disputed Marks were declared invalid. The plaintiff, Zhen Kung Fu Catering, disagreed with this ruling and in June 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a judgment dismissing Zhen Kung Fu’s appeal. Zhen Kung Fu petitioned to the Beijing High Court, which in October 2024 made a final judgment dismissing the petition and upholding the CNIPA’s verdict.

The Beijing High Court held that: The Disputed Marks consist of the text “Kungfu” and a half-body figure image. Bruce Lee was a famous Chinese kung fu film star, martial arts master, and globally renowned promoter of Chinese kung fu, honored as the “King of Kung Fu.” Before the Disputed Marks’ registration date, Bruce Lee was already a household name with extremely high recognition and widespread influence. Considering the survey results and other evidence submitted by Bruce Lee Enterprises, and the common perception of the public and consumers, when the Disputed Marks are used on designated services, the public could easily associate the half-body figure resembling Bruce Lee’s classic image with Bruce Lee himself, thus mistakenly believing that the relevant services have a specific connection with Bruce Lee. Moreover, evidence from book excerpts submitted by Bruce Lee Enterprises shows that the designer of the Disputed Marks’ image mentioned “Bruce Lee” and “Kung Fu Dragon” multiple times in his writings, claiming to have seized an excellent image resource and using the Kung Fu Dragon image to convey the core value of the Zhen Kung Fu brand to leave a memorable impression on consumers. Besides the Disputed Marks, Zhen Kung Fu Catering has registered dozens of other trademarks related to Bruce Lee’s image. Zhen Kung Fu Catering explicitly acknowledged during the first instance trial that their brand image was created with reference to Bruce Lee’s image. This establishes that Zhen Kung Fu Catering subjectively intended to allow relevant consumers to be confused or misled about the source of services. Considering these factors, the first-instance judgment and the contested ruling correctly determined that the Disputed Marks violated Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the 2001 Trademark Law. Zheng Kung Fu Catering’s appeal arguments lack factual and legal basis and were not supported by the court.

The Disputed Marks violated Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the 2001 Trademark Law, an absolute prohibition clause, making its registration application illegal. The subsequent publicity, use, and recognition of the Disputed Marks are not factors to be considered when reviewing whether its registration should be maintained. Therefore, Zhen Kung Fu Catering’s appeal claims could not be established and were not supported by the court.

2. Michelin Trademark Invalidation Case

The CNIPA issued a ruling on an invalidation request filed by Michelin Group Corporation against the “Meiqilin Technology MECHELEN M and Design” trademark (Disputed Mark). The ruling determined that the Disputed Mark differed significantly from Michelin’s claimed well-known “Miqilin in Chinese” and “Michelin” trademarks in terms of text composition, pronunciation, visual effect, etc., and did not constitute reproduction or imitation of Michelin’s trademarks. Furthermore, the “playing cards” and other goods designated by the Disputed Mark differ greatly in function, purpose, sales venues, and consumer base from Michelin’s well-known “tire” products. The registration of the Disputed Mark would not mislead the public or harm Michelin’s interests, thus not violating Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law (well-known trademark protection against unauthorized use). The ruling maintained the registration of the Disputed Mark for goods other than “building blocks (toys); toy cars; intelligent toys.”

Michelin disagreed with this ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which dismissed Michelin’s claims. Michelin then appealed to the Beijing High Court.

After review, the Beijing High court determined that: Based on evidence submitted by Michelin, including certification records of cited trademark, prior adjudications, prior administrative judgment documents, media reports about Michelin’s products, sponsored events, Michelin food and tourism guides, business revenue, advertising expenditures, and facts established in Administrative Judgments, it can be proven that prior to the Disputed Mark’s application date, through Michelin’s continuous use and extensive promotion, cited trademarks “Miqilin in Chinese” and four “MICHELIN” had formed a stable corresponding relationship and had become widely known to the relevant public in China for “tires,” reaching the level of a well-known trademark.

The disputed trademark “Meiqilin Technology MECHELEN M and image” is a text-image combination trademark, with “Meiqilin in Chinese” and “MECHELEN” as its distinctive identifying parts. These distinctive parts do not form a clear distinction from cited trademarks in terms of text composition, pronunciation, overall visual effect, and meaning. Both cited trademarks “Miqilin in Chinese” and “MICHELIN” are coined words, and in the absence of a reasonable explanation from Meiqilin for including terms similar to “Miqilin in Chinese” and “MICHELIN” in the Disputed Mark, the Disputed Mark constitutes reproduction and imitation of cited trademarks.

The higher the recognition of a well-known trademark, the more easily it leads to dilution or “free-riding” damage, and therefore the more it should receive anti-dilution protection. Thus, the scope of cross-category protection for well-known trademarks is related to their recognition and distinctiveness; the higher the recognition and stronger the distinctiveness, the broader the scope of cross-category protection should be.

Although the remaining goods designated by the Disputed Mark (excluding “building blocks (toys); toy cars; intelligent toys”) differ from the “tires” product for which cited trademark is well-known in terms of function, purpose, consumer base, and production departments, based on the well-known status and high recognition of cited trademarks for “tires,” the coexistence of the Disputed Mark with cited trademarks could easily lead relevant consumers to believe that there is some connection between the Disputed Mark and cited trademarks or Michelin, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of cited trademarks or improperly utilizing their market reputation, potentially damaging Michelin’s interests in its well-known trademarks. Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Mark for goods other than “building blocks (toys); toy cars; intelligent toys” violated Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law and should be invalidated.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 29, 2025

Supreme People’s Court: Status of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection in Chinese Courts (2024)

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) released the “Status of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection in Chinese Courts (2024)” with the following data.

In 2024, courts nationwide received 529,370 new intellectual property cases of various types, including first instance, second instance, and retrial petitions, and concluded 543,911 cases (including pending cases). Compared to 2023, these figures represent a decrease of 2.67% for new cases and an increase of 0.001% for concluded cases.

Courts nationwide received 449,923 new first instance civil intellectual property cases and concluded 457,315 cases, a decrease of 2.65% and 0.65% respectively compared to 2023. Among these:

• 44,255 new patent cases, down 1.02% year-on-year
• 124,918 trademark cases, down 4.95% year-on-year
• 247,149 copyright cases, down 1.8% year-on-year
• 8,320 technology contract cases, up 28.16% year-on-year
• 10,567 competition-related cases, up 3.29% year-on-year
• 14,714 other intellectual property civil dispute cases, down 16.53% year-on-year

Courts nationwide received 30,486 new second instance civil intellectual property cases and concluded 32,055 cases, representing decreases of 18.08% and 17.2% year-on-year respectively.

Courts nationwide received 20,849 new first instance administrative intellectual property cases and concluded 27,745 cases, representing increases of 1.29% and 24.19% respectively compared to 2023. Among these:

• 1,679 patent cases, down 15.63% year-on-year
• 19,130 trademark cases, up 3.08% year-on-year
• 9 copyright cases, 2 fewer than in 2023
• 31 other cases, up 29.17% year-on-year

Courts nationwide received 11,666 new second instance administrative intellectual property cases and concluded 10,874 cases, representing increases of 16.04% and 17.44% respectively compared to 2023. Among the concluded cases:

• 9,420 original judgments upheld
• 1,091 judgments modified
• 2 cases sent back for retrial
• 207 cases withdrawn
• 4 cases mediated
• 150 other cases

Courts nationwide received 9,120 new first instance criminal intellectual property infringement cases and concluded 9,003 cases, representing increases of 24.34% and 29.22% respectively compared to 2023. Among these:

• 1 new criminal case involving patent counterfeiting, with 2 cases concluded
• 8,079 new criminal cases involving registered trademark infringement, with 8,017 cases concluded, up 21.78% and 26.11% year-on-year respectively
• 938 new criminal cases involving copyright infringement, with 913 cases concluded, up 49.6% and 68.14% year-on-year respectively
• 102 new other criminal cases, with 71 cases concluded, up 39.73% and 7.58% year-on-year respectively

Courts nationwide received 1,112 new second instance intellectual property criminal cases and concluded 1,068 cases, representing increases of 16.32% and 10.67% year-on-year respectively.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 25, 2025

Content primarily generated automatically by AI drawing software does not constitute a work and does not infringe copyright

Plaintiff Feng sued defendants Zhangjiaggang Dongshan Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. (“Dongshan”), Zhu, and others for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Feng claimed to have created the “Fantasy Wings Transparent Art Chair” series of artistic works (referred to as the “butterfly chair images”) using AI software such as Midjourney and publicly posted them on Xiaohongshu. Defendant Zhu, after viewing Feng’s work and failing to establish cooperation with Feng, allegedly copied the work and commissioned Zhangjiaggang Shenzhou Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Shenzhou Company”) and Zhangjiaggang Kuashi Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (“Kuashi Company”) to produce it. Zhu and Dongshan Company then sold it online. Feng believed that the four defendants’ actions infringed on its copyright and seriously affected the production and sales of its work. The first-instance court, Zhangjiagang Court in Jiangsu, ruled that the images in question were primarily automatically generated by artificial intelligence drawing software and cannot be recognized as copyrightable works. The alleged actions did not constitute infringement or unfair competition, so the court dismissed Feng’s lawsuit.

Feng disagreed with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Suzhou Intermediate Court, but failed to pay the appeal fee within the specified time period. The Suzhou Intermediate Court recently issued a ruling that the first-instance judgment is now effective.

The first-instance court found the following on key issues:

1. The butterfly chair images claimed by Feng do not constitute works protected under the copyright law.

When posting the butterfly chair images on the personal Xiaohongshu account, Feng indicated that the products were all AI-designed and shared the prompts (words used to generate the images). Additionally, Feng stated in court that the images were created using Midjourney and Xingtu software. Therefore, the butterfly chair images are AI generated contents. Content primarily automatically generated by AI drawing software should not be considered as work. However, if a user employs AI drawing software as a tool while demonstrating their original intellectual contribution, even AI-generated content should be protected by copyright as a work. Therefore, the key to determining whether the images constitute as a work in this case depends on whether they are the user’s original intellectual creation rather than primarily automatically generated by AI.

To determine whether text-to-image generation qualifies as original intellectual creation, one can examine the original records of the creative process to assess whether the user made aesthetic choices and personalized judgments. The user should provide original records of the creative process to prove that they adjusted, selected, and polished the initially generated images by adding prompts and modifying parameters, making personalized choices and substantial contributions to layout, proportion, perspective, composition elements, colors, or lines. In this case, Feng claimed to want to create images of butterfly-shaped chairs with a jelly-like feel and glass-like transparency, entering corresponding prompts in Midjourney and setting parameters, but failed to provide original records such as flowcharts of the creation process. Without original records to support the creative process, the choices and modifications claimed lack evidence, making it difficult to demonstrate intellectual input. Moreover, Feng admitted that due to the randomness and uncertainty of Midjourney’s image generation, it could no longer reproduce the exact generation process of the images in question. Therefore, the court found it difficult to determine that Feng made personalized choices and modifications reflecting originality when using Midjourney and Xingtu app to generate the butterfly chair series images. Thus, the images claimed by Feng fail to demonstrate original intellectual input throughout the entire process from initial conception to final selection, do not meet the requirements for constituting a work, and cannot be recognized as a work.

2. The alleged actions do not constitute infringement or unfair competition.

Given that Feng’s butterfly chair images do not constitute works, the claim of copyright infringement against the defendants is not valid. Regarding defendant Zhu’s actions of using text-to-image software for design, production, and sales after failing to establish cooperation and referring to prompts shared by Feng, the court found the following:

First, the defendants did not directly copy and use Feng’s butterfly chair images. From the source of the allegedly infringing products, online promotional images, and packaging images, defendant Zhu’s design idea was inspired by the butterfly series chair images posted by Feng on its Xiaohongshu account, and the defendant referred to the publicly shared prompts when using Midjourney. However, copyright protects specific expressions rather than abstract ideas. The prompts input relative to content generated by AI are ideas, not expressions protected by copyright law. Simple prompts themselves are not works, and referencing them does not constitute infringement. The prompts shared by Feng in the original post on Xiaohongshu were relatively simple combinations lacking differentiation in the description of picture elements and layout composition, and the content and elements pointed to by Feng’s prompts had already been presented by others previously. Furthermore, text-to-image results are random and uncertain, and Feng also acknowledged that they could no longer reproduce the exact images in question. During the trial, Feng also admitted to publicly sharing the relevant prompts to facilitate communication and learning. Therefore, defendant Zhu’s action of referring to the initial prompts actively shared by Feng and then making image edits and adjustments should not be deemed infringement.

Second, although the butterfly chair images claimed by Feng and the allegedly infringing online promotional images and packaging images all have basic structure of four symmetrical butterfly wings combined with a square seat, there are significant visual differences in their specific expressions. Additionally, based on practicality and feasibility considerations, the overall styles of both parties are obviously different, showing that the defendant did not simply copy from two-dimensional to three-dimensional but conducted further design to adapt to industrial production, which does not constitute substantial similarity.

Finally, Feng had not invested in actual production or sales of the butterfly chair images, and the allegedly infringing products are not substantially similar to the images claimed for protection. Feng also had no evidence to prove that the defendants’ production and sales of the allegedly infringing products would likely cause the public to mistakenly believe that their products originated from Feng or had a specific connection with the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants’ production and sales of the allegedly infringing products do not constitute unfair competition.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 18, 2025

1. Defendant’s use of “HUAV” infringes Huawei’s registered trademark rights, Huawei awarded CNY 9.8 million in damages

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) filed a lawsuit in court against Shenzhen Tengyu Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (“Tengyu”), Shenzhen Jintaiyi Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Jintaiyi”), and an individual Chen for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Huawei holds registered trademarks “HUAWEI” with reg. nos. 14203958, 7518113, 10322510, “HUAWEI MatePad” with reg. nos. 33319150, 36353801, “Matepad Air” with reg. no. 68997645, “HUAWEI MATE AIR” with reg. no. 17526330, “Mate Pro” with reg. no. 33016372, “MateBook” with reg. no. 20095505, “HUAWEI MateBook” with reg. no. 18545354, and “HUAWEI MateBook X” with reg. no. 23234865 and others. Tengyu operates stores on the JD platform including “HUAV Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Flagship Store,” “HUAV Tablet Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Tablet Computer Flagship Store,” “HUAV Tablet Computer Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Computer Machine Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Computer Office Flagship Store” and others, and operates “HUAV Flagship Store” on the Tmall platform, selling products including “HUAV,” “HUAV MotePad Air,” “HUAV Mote Pad Pro,” “HUAV Pad Pro,” “HUAV Pad 6 Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook X Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook 15,” “HUAV Pro book,” and “HUAV ProBook D14.”

After trial, the court held:

Regarding whether Tengyu’s actions constitute trademark infringement, Huawei’s said trademarks are still valid. Tengyu opened stores on multiple e-commerce platforms selling tablet computers and laptop computers, using identifiers such as “HUAV,” “HUAV MotePad Pro,” “HUAV MotePad Air,” “HUAV Pad Pro,” “HUAV Pad 6 Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook X Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook 15,” “HUAV Pro book,” “HUAV ProBook D14” in store names, product link names, product details and other pages. These identifiers are highly similar to Huawei’s registered trademarks in question, easily causing consumer confusion, and from the user reviews of these products, Tengyu’s use of these identifiers has actually caused consumer confusion. Tengyu’s use of the above identifiers infringes upon Huawei’s exclusive trademark rights.

Regarding whether Tengyu’s actions constitute unfair competition, Tengyu’s product pages in its various e-commerce platform stores selling tablet computers and laptop computers imitate Huawei’s advertising slogans, graphics, design layout, and overall page layout. This behavior would further cause consumers to mistakenly believe that Tengyu’s sold products originate from Huawei or that there is a specific connection between Tengyu and Huawei, constituting unfair competition.

Regarding economic damage compensation, Huawei did not submit evidence to prove its losses, and the court determined that Tengyu’s profits from the infringement were CNY 6 million (approx. USD 820,000). At the same time, considering that Tengyu intentionally infringed upon Huawei’s trademark rights, and its infringement was large in scale, serious in consequences, and generated huge profits, which constitutes serious intellectual property rights infringement, the court supported Huawei’s claim for punitive damages. Comprehensively considering factors such as Tengyu’s degree of subjective fault and the severity of the infringement, the court determined the punitive damages multiplier to be one time. Based on the court’s determination of Tengyu’s profits and the determined punitive damages multiplier, Tengyu should compensate Huawei for economic losses of CNY 12 million (approx. USD 1,643,000), which exceeds the CNY 9.8 million requested by Huawei in this case, so the court fully supports Huawei’s claim for CNY 9.8 million in economic losses.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 9, 2025

1. CNIPA Launched “International Registration Goods Image Database”

On April 3, 2025, the CNIPA officially launched the “Reference Image Database for Goods in International Trademark Registration” project on its website. Applicants can access the database at https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn:9443/#/public-search to search for the names and related information of goods and services to be designated under their international registrations.

Users can input keywords related to the goods or services they wish to search for, and the system will retrieve all relevant results. Clicking on a specific entry will open a detailed page displaying the Chinese and English names of the goods or services, their international classification, identification number, descriptive information, and corresponding images or videos. This feature helps applicants accurately fill in the names of goods and services when submitting applications.

2. The Shenzhen Intermediate Court Rules Resale of Sam’s Club Membership Sub-Cards and Proxy Shopping as Unfair Competition, Applying Punitive Damages to Award CNY 2.04 million

Walmart discovered that a Taobao store was selling products such as “Sam’s Club one-time card, Sam’s Club day pass, Sam’s card for single-use, Sam’s online shopping JD.com”, “Sam’s Club membership card, online shopping, order placement, purchasing agent, JD.com home delivery, Sam’s Club nationally valid” and the like. The displayed images used the ”  ” logo and phrases like “officially authorized nationwide,” along with text such as “enjoy Sam’s Club member prices,” “Sam’s Club Store,” and “Sam’s Global Purchase.” Purchasing this product provided access to a mobile app download link from the store. The download page used the “” logo and “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” text, with a note stating “If needed, you can follow the WeChat public account PutaoHelper, specializing in: single-use cards, online shopping, order placement, annual cards.” After downloading, installing, and opening the said app, the interface displayed the “” logo and the text “Better Life at Sam’s.” The app’s homepage used the “” logo and phrases like “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” and “Welcome to Sam’s Club Store in Chinese,” with sections such as “Featured Products” and “Quality Home Goods,” but none of the product links on the page were functional.

Walmart filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement by the store operator Li for using identical and similar trademarks to Walmart’s registered trademarks in his Taobao store and counterfeit app. Walmart also alleged unfair competition practices including: 1. Li renting and selling Sam’s Club membership cards in his Taobao store, specifically selling Sam’s Club single-use cards through a counterfeit Sam’s Club Store app; providing Sam’s Club membership card online order placement services; and separately selling Sam’s Club primary and secondary membership cards; 2. Li using Walmart’s influential service name “Sam’s in Chinese” in his Taobao store and counterfeit app, and using Walmart’s influential “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” software interface in the counterfeit app.

The first-instance court held that Li’s trademark usage in the infringing store name, product names, product descriptions, and infringing APP interface violated Walmart’s exclusive rights to its registered trademarks. However, it did not support Walmart’s claims of unfair competition. The court ordered Li to compensate Walmart for economic losses of CNY 1,343,136 (apprx. USD 183,000) (twice the profit from infringement) plus CNY 277,406.01 (apprx. USD 37,797) for reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement.

Both Walmart and Li appealed. The Shenzhen Intermediate Court identified the key issues as:

1. Whether Li’s separate sale of Sam’s Club primary and secondary membership cards in his Taobao store infringed on Walmart’s registered trademarks for “,” “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese,” “SAM’S CLUB,” and “Sam’s in Chinese” in Class 35 services and “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” in Class 36 services.
2. Whether Li’s rental and sale of Sam’s Club single-use cards, separate sale of primary and secondary membership cards, provision of purchasing agent services, use of the “Sam’s in Chinese” name in his Taobao store and infringing app, and use of “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” in the infringing app constituted unfair competition.
3. Whether the first-instance court’s application of punitive damages for economic losses and reasonable expenses was appropriate.

Regarding the first issue, the second-instance court found that the infringing online store used “Sam’s in Chinese” in its name; its operator avatar used ““; its services in sale included Sam’s Club single-use cards, Sam’s Club annual membership primary cards, Sam’s Club annual membership secondary cards (family cards), and online purchasing agent services. In all these services, the product link names used “Sam’s in Chinese,” product display images used “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” and “,” and product details and brand introductions used “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese.” For the annual primary and secondary membership cards, the product display used “.” In the infringing app, the download interface and icon used “” with “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” text, and the homepage’s upper left corner displayed the “” logo. These infringing marks were all used to identify service sources, intended to inform consumers that the products came from Sam’s Club Store. Therefore, the court rejected Li’s claim that these marks served merely indicative functions.

Furthermore, in terms of services, Li’s separate sale of Sam’s Club annual primary and secondary (family) membership cards in his store provided discounted membership accounts for consumer use and online marketplace services, which were identical to the approved services of “providing discounts to others at participating institutions through membership cards” and “providing an online marketplace for buyers and sellers of goods and services” under Walmart’s registered trademarks. When providing the foregoing services, Li’s used “” as his store avatar, “Sam’s in Chinese” in the store name, and “Sam’s in Chinese,” “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese,” “” in product names, descriptions, and images, with “” in product displays; all the signs were identical or similar to Walmart’s registered trademarks. This could lead consumers to believe that Li was officially authorized by Walmart to sell these cards separately, or that Li had a business relationship with Walmart, resulting in consumer confusion that his actions were legitimate. This reduced Walmart’s opportunities to sell Sam’s Club annual cards and violated Walmart’s rules for Sam’s Club membership cards, potentially preventing consumers who purchased separated primary or secondary cards from his store from continuously enjoying Sam’s Club membership benefits for a full year after purchase, which could generate negative reviews for Walmart. Li profited from separately selling primary and secondary cards, which exceeded the reasonable use scope of “trademark rights exhaustion.” Therefore, Li’s separate sale of Sam’s Club primary or secondary cards still infringed on Walmart’s exclusive rights to its registered trademarks, and he should bear legal responsibility. The court did not accept Li’s claim of fair use.

Regarding the second issue, according to Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, operators in market transactions should follow principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, and good faith, and observe recognized business ethics. Whether Li’s actions constituted unfair competition depended on whether they violated these principles, harmed Walmart’s legitimate interests, and disrupted market competition order. First, according to the “Sam’s Club Store Membership Charter,” “Sam’s Club membership cards are for personal use only.” Li’s services of selling Sam’s Club single-use cards through the infringing app and providing online purchasing agent services all violated Walmart’s membership card usage regulations. He essentially exploited Walmart’s “Sam’s in Chinese” and “Sam’s Club Store in Chinese” market influence to gain business opportunities and economic benefits. This behavior confused service sources, potentially leading consumers to mistakenly believe his services were associated with Walmart or authorized by Walmart. This violated the principle of good faith, damaged Walmart’s competitive advantage, and constituted unfair competition. Second, according to the “Sam’s Club Store Membership Charter,” “family cards or company cards are secondary cards linked to the primary card. The primary card cannot be transferred in any form.” Although Walmart allows primary and secondary cards to be linked for use, it does not authorize their separate sale. Li’s separate sale of primary and secondary Sam’s Club membership cards also violated Walmart’s membership card usage regulations, disrupted Walmart’s membership system management, damaged Walmart’s control over membership cards, prevented Walmart from operating normally according to its business model, objectively reduced Walmart’s opportunities to directly sell membership cards, and caused damage to Walmart’s business interests. Li’s behavior violated not only the principle of good faith but also the recognized business ethics, constituting unfair competition. Third, according to Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, operators shall not use another entity’s influential enterprise name (including abbreviations, trade names, etc.) or web pages without authorization, causing confusion that leads others to mistake their goods for another’s or believe there is a specific connection with another entity. The court found that Walmart’s evidence was sufficient to prove that the “Sam’s in Chinese” name and Sam’s Club Store APP software interface were influential names and software interfaces protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Li’s use of “Sam’s in Chinese” in his Taobao store name and infringing APP, and his use of an interface identical to the Sam’s Club Store APP software interface in his infringing APP, could mislead consumers into believing that his store and infringing APP were associated with Walmart or officially provided by Walmart. This confusing behavior damaged Walmart’s goodwill and disrupted market order, constituting unfair competition. In summary, Li’s above actions violated the principles of good faith and the recognized business ethics, disrupted Walmart’s normal business operations, damaged its legitimate interests, and constituted unfair competition. Therefore, Walmart’s claim that Li engaged in unfair competition was valid and should be supported.

Regarding the third issue, Walmart clarified during the second-instance hearing that the basis for calculating punitive damages should be Li’s profits from time-segment rental and sales of Sam’s Club single-use cards and purchasing agent services. Evidence submitted by Walmart showed that Li’s infringement lasted for a long time with substantial sales volume, and he used a counterfeit APP with an interface identical to Walmart’s Sam’s Club Store APP, demonstrating obvious subjective malice, severe nature of conduct, and serious circumstances, thereby meeting the requirements for punitive damages under Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law. Considering Li’s subjective malice and the severity of the infringement, the court increased the damages to three times Li’s profits from infringement. Additionally, Walmart’s reasonable expenses to stop the infringement, including investigation costs and attorney fees, should also be included in the compensation. The court determined that Li should compensate Walmart for economic losses of CNY 1,762,866 plus reasonable expenses of CNY 277,406.01, totaling CNY 2,040,272.01 (apprx. USD 278,000).

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 3, 2025

1. The First Instance Court Ruled Parallel Import; The Second Instance Court Overturned, Finding Imported Goods Infringing

The Chongqing High Court has made a second-instance judgment in the trademark infringement dispute case between the appellant, Guangzhou Otiwa Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (“Otiwa”) and the appellee, Chongqing Beigou Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Beigou”).

The first-instance court held that: First, according to the results of the QR code traceability, the products in question were genuine. Second, Shanniya is the overseas trademark owner of the disputed trademark. The products sold by Beigou had the authorization of Shanniya, and the products in question were purchased by Beigou from Shanniya through cross-border e-commerce channels. The source of these products is the same as Otiwa’s products, and the acquisition method is legal. The evidence in the case is sufficient to establish that Beigou’s product source is legal. Third, the evidence in the case also indicates that Beigou had reviewed the source and authorization of the products in question, and it had fulfilled reasonable due diligence obligations without subjective intention to infringe. Therefore, the first-instance court held that the goods in question were genuine products obtained by Beigou through parallel import methods. Beigou’s store clearly described that the goods in question had an official authorization certificate from Shanniya. The manufacturer, lake source code, and other information on the product cans also clearly indicated the origin of the product, which would not cause consumers to be confused about the source of the goods and did not damage the identification function of the trademark. Existing evidence was also insufficient to prove that the alleged infringing act affected the quality assurance function of the disputed trademark or resulted in the disfigurement or dilution of the trademark’s goodwill, and did not damage the trademark’s quality assurance function and goodwill-carrying function. Given that the existing evidence could prove that the allegedly infringing products were genuine and purchased through regular channels, the evidence claimed by Otiwa was insufficient to prove that Beigou had committed infringement.

The second-instance court reversed the first-instance judgment, holding that: Trademarks have territorial attributes, and trademarks are only effective within the registered territorial scope. Therefore, when determining whether a product is infringing, the judgment standard should be based on whether the mark used on the product has been authorized by the registered trademark owner in that country, whether the relevant mark is identical or similar to the registered trademark in that country, and whether the relevant goods are identical or similar to the goods approved for use under the registered trademark in that country, rather than using whether the source of the sold goods is consistent. Beigou did not provide evidence to prove that at the time of the alleged infringement, the import and sale of the allegedly infringing products were authorized by Otiwa, the owner of the disputed trademark. Therefore, the first-instance court’s determination that the allegedly infringing products were genuine products from Shanniya and purchased through regular channels, did not damage the identification function, quality assurance function, and goodwill-carrying function of the disputed trademark, would not cause consumer confusion about the source of the goods, and did not constitute infringement, was an error in determination, which this court hereby corrects according to law.

In importing and selling the allegedly infringing products in question, Beigou used the “Neurio Niu Rui You in Chinese” mark on the customs declaration form, prominently used the “Neurio” mark on the packaging of the allegedly infringing products sold through its Taobao online store, used the “Niu Rui You in Chinese” mark in the product name on the purchase page of the allegedly infringing products in its Taobao online store, and also prominently displayed the “Neurio” mark in the product images shown.

First, in terms of product category, the allegedly infringing product is a lactoferrin formula milk powder, with an English name containing “Milk Powder.” Based on its ingredients, it should be classified as a milk powder product, which is identical to the “infant milk powder” approved for use under trademark No. 25797592 and No. 25792637 in terms of product ingredients, functional purposes, sales channels, and target consumers, constituting identical goods.

Second, the “Neurio” mark used on the allegedly infringing products and network sales pages is identical to Otiwa’s registered trademark No. 61116472 “Neurio” and similar to No. 25792637 “Neuri”; the “Niu Rui You in Chinese” mark used on the network sales pages is identical to Otiwa’s registered trademarks No. 25797592 and No. 6114540 “Niu Rui You in Chinese.” Therefore, Beigou’s aforementioned allegedly infringing acts constitute infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

2. The Supreme People’s Court Finds Copyright Infringement Despite Small Graphical Element in Disputed Trademark

The Supreme People’s Court issued a retrial judgment in the administrative dispute case regarding the trademark invalidation request between the plaintiff Li Feng, the defendant CNIPA, and the third party Heilongjiang Red Mangrove Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. The court determined that the disputed trademark infringed upon Li Feng’s prior copyright work.

Copyrighted Work

Disputed Trademark

The court held: In this case, the work that Li Feng claims to have prior copyright to is the “Old Hoe Good Hoe” work. The graphical portion of this work depicts a farmer wearing a hat and holding a hoe while working in a field. This reflects the designer’s personality, possesses aesthetic value overall, demonstrates a certain originality, and constitutes an artistic work protected by the copyright law. The work registration certificate, court judgments, and other evidence submitted by Li can prove that he enjoys prior copyright to the work.

The “farmer carrying a hoe” portion included in the graphical part of the disputed trademark is almost completely identical to Li’s work in terms of character composition, hoe shape, and positioning. The two share similar compositional elements, design techniques, and visual effects, constituting substantial similarity under the copyright law. The work registration certificate, the application time of the cited trademark, and other evidence in the case can prove that the work was publicly available before the application date of the disputed trademark, and Red Mangrove company had the possibility of accessing it. Red Mangrove company’s application to register the disputed trademark damaged Li’s prior copyright to the work in question, constituting “damage to another’s existing prior rights” as referred to in Article 32 of the Trademark Law. Although the “farmer carrying a hoe” graphical portion does not occupy a large proportion of the disputed trademark, copyright infringement is not determined by the size of the proportion.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

March 26, 2025

Scraping Off Codes Sales Disrupts Market Order, Second-Instance Court Rules It Constitutes Unfair Competition

Recently, the Linyi Intermediate Court of Shandong, acting as a second-instance court, issued a final ruling in the case involving trademark infringement and unfair competition between Atomy (China) Co., Ltd. and Yinan Shanggu Food and Grocery Store. The court overturned the first-instance judgment’s trademark infringement finding and ruled that Shanggu Food and Grocery’s code-scraping sales constitute unfair competition.

Atomy (China), legally authorized by trademark holders Atomy Co., Ltd. and Kolmar BNH Co., Ltd., has the right to independently enforce its rights against intellectual property infringement and unfair competition acts in China. Atomy (China) claimed that Shanggu Food and Grocery’s sale of Atomy Huanliyin products on its Taobao store constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. Given that Shanggu Food and Grocery had scraped off the product traceability codes and internal management tracking codes, the disputed products were clearly not genuine goods purchased from Atomy (China), thereby constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Shangu Food Supermarket stated that the products they purchased were genuine, with black hidden codes covered. These hidden codes were Atomy’s internal monitoring codes that could track member purchases and product flow. Distributors had therefore covered these codes. When selling on domestic platforms, they did not conceal this fact, and the subsequently added labels included the product name, ingredients, nutrition information, and batch number, which were completely consistent with the original product.

First-Instance Court Ruling:

The court held that Shanggu Food and Grocery’s act of scraping off codes while claiming to sell genuine products hindered the trademark owner’s ability to manage product distribution, track quality, and protect brand reputation. It also misled consumers about the products’ true origin and sales channels, infringing their right to accurate product information and quality assurance. Thus, the court ruled that the code-scraping constituted both trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Second-Instance Court Ruling:

For trademark infringement, the court emphasized that trademarks primarily serve to identify a product’s source (i.e., the manufacturer), not the specific seller. Atomy (China) bore the burden of proving the disputed products were counterfeit. However, aside from obscured traceability codes, missing black secret codes, and differently sized barcodes, the products’ packaging and contents were identical to genuine ones. Shanggu Food and Grocery provided a reasonable explanation for removing the codes, while Atomy (China) failed to sufficiently prove the products were counterfeit. Moreover, the court found no consumer confusion about the product’s origin or disruption of the trademark’s source-identification function. The first-instance ruling on trademark infringement was therefore overturned.

For unfair competition, the court affirmed that Shanggu Food and Grocery and Atomy (China) were competitors, and the products sold were identical. Atomy’s secret codes were designed to track product flow and prevent resale. By obscuring traceability and expiration date codes, Shanggu Food and Grocery intentionally hid the product’s origin and impeded manufacturer oversight, thereby undermining product integrity, disrupting market order, and harming consumer rights. This constituted unfair competition.

Consequently, the second-instance court partially supported Shangu Food Supermarket’s appeal. It modified the first instance judgment, ordering Shangu Food Supermarket to immediately cease sales and pay Atomy (China) CNY 30,000 (apprx. USD 4,100) in economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Brand Protection News

March 20, 2025

Court Recognizes “B.DUCK” as a Well-Known Trademark for Clothing Products, prohibiting the Defendant’s Use of Similar “G.DUCK” Mark on Thermos Cups

Recently, the Chongqing High Court made a final judgment in the trademark infringement lawsuit involving plaintiffs SEMK Products Limited (“SEMK”) and Deyin Trading (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Deyin”) against defendants Wenzhou Xiaohuangya Brand Operating Co., Ltd. (“Wenzhou Xiaohuangya”) and Huizhou Owan Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Oowan”). The court recognized SEMK’s “B.DUCK” and design trademarks as well-known trademarks for clothing products and ruled that the defendants had committed trademark infringement, ordering them to compensate the plaintiffs for economic losses of CNY4.3 million (apprx. USD594,000).

Cited Marks

First, SEMK’s “B.DUCK” and design trademarks constituted well-known trademarks based on the following: 1) SEMK’s Cited Marks have been continuously used on clothing, shoes and other goods since its approval in 2011, with nearly ten years of use by the time the alleged infringing mark was registered and nearly ten years or more when the alleged infringement occurred, accumulating tremendous commercial value over this extended period of continuous use; 2) SEMK’s trademarks have received numerous awards since 2015, enjoying high reputation and recognition among relevant consumers; 3) SEMK’s promotions have been widespread, in-depth, and diverse, creating significant market value for the brand; 4) SEMK’s products have wide sales coverage, high market share, and substantial revenue; 5) t SEMK’s trademarks have been included in the provincial key trademark protection list. The CNIPA has cited SEMK’s trademarks as reference trademarks in more than twenty invalidation decisions and more than ten registration refusal decisions.

Second, the alleged infringing marks are similar to SEMK’s trademarks in letter composition, sequence, pronunciation, and overall visual effect. Given the extremely high recognition of SEMK’s Cited Marks, and considering that clothing, shoes, thermos cups, lunch boxes, water bottles, and cups are all daily consumer goods with overlapping consumer groups, the infringing acts could easily lead consumers into associating and incorrectly believing that there is a licensing relationship or affiliated business connection between the SEMK and defendant.

Third, the court applied statutory damages with punitive elements to determine compensation. Within the statutory compensation range, the court mainly considered the following factors: 1)  SEMK’s trademarks have high brand value; 2) Wenzhou Xiaohuangya had subjective malicious intent, including applying for multiple similar trademarks with obvious copying intention; and after SEMK took action to protect its rights, continuing the alleged infringing acts despite knowing they might constitute infringement, showing clear subjective malicious intent to exploit the reputation of the SEMK’s products; 3) There were numerous alleged infringing marks; 4) The infringement was serious, with many types of infringing products, wide sales territories, large sales volume, and long duration. The promotion and sales were conducted through both online and offline channels with broad coverage.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court has issued a final judgment in a groundbreaking copyright infringement and unfair competition case involving AI-generated “Text-to-Video” technology. Tencent Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Plaintiff”) prevailed against Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Defendant”), with the court upholding the first-instance judgement in favor of the Plaintiff.

Case Background

In this case, the Defendant’s “DuJia” software offered an “AI One-Click Video Generation” function that unlawfully extracted 3–7 second clips from the popular TV series Joy of Life, for which the Plaintiff holds exclusive information network dissemination rights. These clips were stored on the Defendant’s servers and made available to users. By entering text prompts and clicking “One-Click Video Generation,” users could generate and publish videos incorporating these clips on Baijiahao, a platform operated by the Defendant.

Court Rulings

The Changsha Kaifu District People’s Court (the first-instance court) held that:

• The extracted video clips, as components of audiovisual work, demonstrated originality and were therefore legally protected.
• The Defendant directly infringed the Plaintiff’s information network dissemination rights by uploading the clips to its servers and enabling public access.
• The Defendant must immediately cease all infringing activities and pay the Plaintiff compensation of RMB 800,000.

The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court (the second-instance court) affirmed on appeal that the Defendant’s storage of the clips in the “DuJia” software’s database, allowing public access at any time, met the statutory criteria for copyright infringement under China’s Information Network Dissemination Right.

Legal Significance

The Changsha Kaifu District People’s Court officially recognizes this case as China’s first copyright infringement lawsuit involving AI “text-to-video” technology. Both courts determined that the Defendant committed direct infringement rather than indirect or secondary infringement, establishing a crucial precedent for future AI-related intellectual property disputes in China.

East IP’s Legal Strategy Advice

East IP’s legal team demonstrate exceptional expertise amid the rapid evolving artificial intelligence technologies that create increasing complex legal challenges. When undertaking this case, East IP’s attorneys:

• Conducting comprehensive research into AI business models and underlying technologies.
• Applying rigorous copyright law analysis to establish the Plaintiff’s rights.
• Developing a strategic evidence collection plan to strengthen the case.

Looking Ahead

With this precedent-setting victory, East IP’s legal team is at the forefront of AI-related intellectual property litigation. The firm remains committed to providing expert legal counsel to businesses navigating the evolving regulatory landscape of AI and copyright law, ensuring compliance and legal protection in the digital age.

The case was handled by East IP’s Partner Jack Jiang, Associate Zhang Tianhao and Zhu Nandi, along with their legal team.

Weekly China Brand Protection News

March 7, 2025

SALOMON’s “Mountain-Shaped Line” Shoe Design Recognized as Influential Product Design

Amer Sports Equipment Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Amer Sports”) filed a lawsuit against Hainan Suyin Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Hainan Suyin”), Guangdong Suyin Brand Management Co., Ltd. (“Guangdong Suyin”), Foshan Suyin Investment Consulting Co., Ltd. (“Foshan Suyin”), and Wu (individual) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. After review, the court ruled as follows:

Third-party Salomon S.A.S is the registrant of  “” with reg. no. 12195008, “Salomon in Chinese” with reg. no. 3995592, and “SALOMON” with reg. no. 145868 “SALOMON”, all registered for use on Class 25 goods including “clothing, sportswear, shoes, etc.” On April 24, 2017, Salomon S.A.S authorized Amer Sports to handle anti-counterfeiting and related cases concerning registered and unregistered trademarks, names, copyrights, and unfair competition within China in its own name, including filing lawsuits, appeals, and collecting related payments. According to this authorization, Amer Sports has the right to appoint representatives to exercise relevant rights including litigation, making it a qualified plaintiff in this case.

Regarding whether the “” logo used by the four defendants on their allegedly infringing products constitutes trademark infringement:

In this case, the registered trademark “” consists of stylized English letters “S” and “SALOMON” arranged in two rows. The allegedly infringing logo is a single English letter “S.” When comparing the allegedly infringing “S” logo with the registered ” ” trademark, there are significant differences in design composition, and the overall structures are not similar. It is difficult to determine if they are similar trademarks, so the allegedly infringing logo used by the four defendants cannot be deemed as trademark infringement.

The specific reasons are:

First, regarding design elements, the registered trademark consists of a stylized “S” graphic and “SALOMON” letters, forming a complete “” logo; while the allegedly infringing logo is a single letter “S.” Although the design characteristics of this “S” are similar to the registered trademark, from an overall visual effect, there are significant differences.

Second, regarding pronunciation and meaning, there are also significant differences. Generally, a single English letter itself lacks distinctiveness and is difficult to register, unless the single “S” has gained strong distinctiveness through long-term use. In this case, the allegedly infringing logo is “S” while the registered trademark is “,” which differs in pronunciation and meaning.

Third, the allegedly infringing products simultaneously use “sheiiStudio,” “CHRISTINE sheii,” or “sheii” logos, which are either registered trademarks of Guangdong Suyin or trademarks applied by Foshan Suyin. It is reasonably justified for the alleged infringers to use the first letter of the “Suyin” brand on their products.

Fourth, “S” is an English letter or a pinyin letter, a basic unit of language expression that has been used by humans for a long time and is a crystallization of human wisdom. Allowing the monopolization of a single English letter “S” by an individual or entity would inappropriately expand the scope of trademark prohibition rights and affect the legitimate rights of other operators. Therefore, considering these factors, the allegedly infringing logo and the registered trademarks do not constitute similar trademarks, and the use of related logos by the alleged infringers should not be determined as trademark infringement under the Trademark Law. Amer Sports’s claim on this matter cannot be established, and the second-instance court does not support it.

Regarding whether the allegedly infringing product design infringes on the product design that Amer Sports seeks to protect, the court ruled as follows:

First, regarding the determination of the design content that Amer Sports requests protection for and whether it is unique design: The product design mainly features prominent mountain-shaped zigzag lines on the central sides of the shoes, starting from approximately 1/4 of the way from the toe and extending to the inflection point of the side of the heel counter. The lines gradually increase in height from toe to heel, with an overall leftward tilt toward the toe, occupying approximately 80-90% of the upper’s area. Second, there is a wide decorative strip near the bottom of the upper that intersects with the side zigzag lines, slightly wavy near the toe, creating a smooth, streamlined effect around the shoe. The upper lines correspond to the shoe shape, creating a harmonious overall effect. The upper follows the shape of the zigzag lines, presenting unique and distinctive coloring, with the inflection points and peaks of the mountain-shaped lines connecting to each other. The shoelace eyelets are symmetrical on both sides, the sole has distinct layers, and the outsole features deep geometric grooves extending to wrap around the toe, forming a prominent trapezoidal design. All elements combined are unique and distinctive. Comparing with the design documents submitted by Hainan Suyin, Guangdong Suyin, Foshan Suyin, and Wu, the design in question does not completely match the features of these prior design patents, with differences in the angles of the zigzag lines and the way the lines intersect. Although the design in question shares some design features with prior designs, it is not a reproduction of those design features. The allegedly infringing design is almost identical to the design in question. Considering the limited design space for shoe products, given that the design in question differs from prior design features, it can be protected as a unique design. Therefore, the defense of non-infringement based on prior design patents put forward by Hainan Suyin, Guangdong Suyin, Foshan Suyin, and Wu cannot be established.

Second, regarding whether the design in question has a certain level of influence: Based on the “Search Report” submitted by Amer Sports, offline store operations, various platforms’ promotion and reporting of the XT-6, XT-quest, XAPRO and other products, and sales volumes, it can be proven that Amer Sports sells multiple models of sports shoes including XT-6, XT-quest, and XAPRO through various offline stores and online sales platforms. Through extensive and continuous sales and promotion, these sports shoe models can be considered known to the relevant public, meaning that the products in question can be determined to have “a certain level of influence.” In this case, the design that Amer Sports seeks to protect is text and pattern design. Although it claims nine design elements, from its specific description, it is claiming nine characteristics of the design. Among these nine characteristics, the most distinctive feature is the mountain-shaped zigzag pattern on the upper. This consists of three or four consecutive zigzag lines starting from approximately 1/4 of the way from the toe toward the upper, with each zigzag line head used for threading shoelaces. As for the other design features claimed by Amer Sports, compared with similar products in the market, they do not produce distinctively different design feature effects. Overall, the “mountain-shaped zigzag line” design claimed by Amer Sports can be recognized as unique product design. However, regarding Amer Sports’ request to protect the names XT-6, XT-QUEST, and XA Pro: first, Amer Sports did not explicitly request protection for these model names in the first instance; second, Amer Sports did not submit relevant evidence to the court regarding the distinctive features and reputation of these names that distinguish them from other similar products. Therefore, the court does not support Amer Sports’ claim to protect these names.

Third, whether the allegedly infringing products infringe on the design of the products in question. The allegedly infringing products produced and sold by Hainan Suyin also use mountain-shaped zigzag structures, and some allegedly infringing products are labeled “XAPRO.” When comparing the design of the allegedly infringing products produced by Hainan Suyin with the design of XT-6, XT-quest, XAPRO and other sports shoes in isolation, the two are highly similar in overall design and visual effect, especially in the design of the mountain-shaped zigzag lines. Additionally, some allegedly infringing products use “XA PRO,” making it difficult for consumers with ordinary attention to accurately distinguish between the two, which can easily cause confusion and mistaken purchases. Since Hainan Suyin, Guangdong Suyin, Foshan Suyin, and Wu cannot prove that the mountain-shaped structure and “XAPRO” marking have become universal designs or universal markings, the allegedly infringing product design infringes on the design of the products in question.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China