Background Image

News

Our recent successes, awards, events, and key milestones

We demonstrate expertise through landmark cases and secure key victories for clients in IP disputes

Latest updates and key milestones as we continue to grow

We share valuable insights and expertise through diverse engagements

Discover Our Latest Developments, and Success Stories Driving the Future of IP 

Success Stories

Press

Events

Client success, powered by expertise. Explore real-world examples of how we've helped clients protect and grow their IP rights and value. 

Follow our key milestones, awards, industry impact, and important firm developments. 

Engage with Lusheng. Stay informed on recent conferences, webinars, and events where our experts are making an impact. 

Carol Wang

Liping Xu

Dante Fan

Brand Zhang

<h2>Case summary</h2>
Lusheng has secured a favourable judgment for a leading technology company (the ‘plaintiff’) in a technical trade secrets infringement dispute involving a former senior R&amp;D employee and his subsequent employer. The court found that the defendants had misappropriated the plaintiff’s technical secrets, ordered them to cease the infringing acts, and awarded RMB 1 million in compensation.
The plaintiff had invested significant resources in developing a proprietary technical solution for a component product. The dispute centred on nine categories of confidential technical information, including technical parameters and design data developed through repeated testing and calculation, which were critical to achieving the required product performance.
After leaving the plaintiff, the former employee joined a competitor, which shortly afterwards launched and sold competing component products with structures, dimensions and tolerances substantially consistent with the plaintiff’s confidential technical information. The plaintiff brought proceedings against both the former employee and his new employer.
The defendants argued that the information did not constitute protectable technical secrets. In particular, they contended that the relevant products had already been publicly circulated, that the claimed features could be obtained through visual observation or simple measurement, that the plaintiff had not adopted effective confidentiality measures, and that the former employee had not accessed the relevant materials.
&nbsp;
<h2>Lusheng’s Approach in Framing the Trade Secret Claim</h2>
<h3>1.Public sale did not negate confidentiality</h3>
Lusheng framed the case around the protectability of the plaintiff’s technical information as a confidential technical solution, rather than a dispute over visible product features. The team argued that the public sale of the finished products did not mean that the complete combination of technical parameters, design data and tolerances had entered the public domain. The court accepted this position, holding that the claimed technical information could not be fully derived from publicly available products and therefore constituted protectable technical secrets.
<h3>2.Establishing reasonable confidentiality measures</h3>
Lusheng also focused on demonstrating that the plaintiff had taken practical and reasonable steps to protect the information before the infringement occurred. The relevant technical information was recorded in drawings marked with ownership information and dates, and employees with access to such materials had signed confidentiality agreements defining the scope of confidential information and their corresponding obligations. The court found that these measures were sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intention to maintain confidentiality and were capable of preventing disclosure under normal circumstances.
<h3>3.Proving access and lack of lawful source</h3>
To establish infringement, Lusheng relied on evidence showing that the former employee had access to the plaintiff’s confidential technical information during his employment. Internal email records showed that he had received project drawings and 3D model files containing the relevant confidential materials. The defendants failed to provide evidence showing that the accused products were independently developed or otherwise derived from a legitimate technical source. Accordingly, the court held both defendants jointly liable for trade secrets infringement. It ordered them to immediately cease the infringing acts and, taking into account the plaintiff’s R&amp;D investment, the scale of infringement and reasonable enforcement expenses, awarded total damages of RMB 1 million.
&nbsp;
<h2>Key Points from the Judgment</h2>
The judgment shows that core design parameters and technical combinations may remain confidential even where the finished product has entered the market and certain features are externally visible, provided that the specific combination of information cannot be fully derived from public materials.
The court’s reasoning also highlights the evidential value of clear and documented confidentiality measures, including marked technical drawings, confidentiality agreements, controlled access to technical materials and records showing which employees had access to sensitive R&amp;D information.
The case further illustrates the importance of proving both access to the confidential information and the absence of a lawful technical source for the accused products when establishing trade secrets infringement involving former employees and competing businesses.

Lusheng Secures RMB 1 Million Victory in Technical Trade Secrets Infringement Dispute

Heidi Feng

Susie He

<ul>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Lusheng secured an RMB 4.7 million victory for a licensing agent in a trade secrets dispute concerning the alleged misuse of confidential licensing and client information.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The judgement confirms that commercially valuable client and transaction information developed by a licensing agent may qualify as the agent’s own protectable trade secrets, even when the IP licensing was on a non-exclusive basis.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
<h2 class="MsoNormal">Case summary</h2>
Lusheng Law Firm, Rouse’s strategic partner, has successfully secured a significant victory for a long-established IP licensing agent in China (the “plaintiff”) in a complex unfair competition dispute concerning trade secrets.&nbsp;
The case concerned the protection of commercially valuable client and licensing information that underpinned the plaintiff’s competitive position in the IP licensing industry.
The plaintiff had been operating as a licensing agent for more than 20 years. The dispute arose after a key employee of the Japanese rights holder, the individual defendant, who was one of the core personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the plaintiff’s licensing applications, later established his own company in the China market, entering into direct competition with the plaintiff.
Despite its limited capital and short operating history, the defendant company quickly became involved in a number of significant licensing projects. The plaintiff alleged that, in six of those projects, the terms later agreed by the defendant company were substantially similar to those previously submitted by the plaintiff for approval.
The plaintiff further contended that the misconduct went beyond the misuse of its confidential information. It was alleged that the individual defendant used his position in the licensing approval process to selectively delay certain applications beyond the agreed review period, whilst simultaneously contacting the plaintiff’s clients privately, encouraging them to switch to the defendant company and raising concerns about the stability of the plaintiff’s licensing authorisation.
&nbsp;
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Lusheng’s Approach in Framing the Trade Secret Claim</h2>
Lusheng framed the case as more than ordinary market competition, arguing that the defendants had gained an unfair commercial advantage by misusing the plaintiff’s confidential information and damaging its reputation.
To support this position, Lusheng organised and presented evidence showing the defendants’ access to the plaintiff’s confidential submissions, their knowledge of the confidential nature of that information, and their subsequent involvement in diverting related business opportunities.
Lusheng also established that the plaintiff had taken reasonable measures to protect its trade secrets, and carried out a detailed comparison between the plaintiff’s licensing submissions and the goods later licensed by the defendants across six projects, demonstrating substantial similarity in customer, products and transaction terms.
The Court accepted the arguments advanced by Lusheng, holding that the information contained in the plaintiff’s licensing submissions qualified as protectable trade secrets. &nbsp;As the defendants failed to provide evidence of either independent development or a lawful source for the information, the Court concluded that they had used the plaintiff’s trade secrets.
The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that a non-exclusive licensing arrangement precluded a finding of infringement. Whilst lawful competition was permissible, the use of confidential materials to obtain a competitive advantage was not, nor could the defendants rely on the internal decisions of the IP rights holder to avoid liability for their unlawful conduct.
The defendants were subsequently ordered to cease the infringing conduct and jointly pay the plaintiff RMB 4.7 million in compensation, a significant outcome that reflected the value of the diverted commercial opportunities, the plaintiff’s long-term investment in developing the business and the harm caused to its reputation.
&nbsp;
<h2 class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph; tab-stops: 106.2pt;">Why the Judgement Matters</h2>
The decision draws an important distinction between lawful competition under a non-exclusive licensing arrangement and unlawful competition based on the misuse of confidential information.
It confirms that client and transaction information developed by a licensing agent may constitute the agent’s own protectable trade secrets, rather than information that automatically belongs to the upstream rights holder.
It also highlights the risks inherent in IP licensing approval chains, demonstrating that IP licensors and their employees may themselves incur liability if they misuse the information contained in licensing application submissions.

Lusheng secures important rulings on trade secrets infringement in IP licensing industry

Landy Jiang

Terry Lu

Case concerning the application for retrial filed by Shenzhen Tasgo Watch Co., Ltd. against Casio Computer Co., Ltd. as respondent and Guangzhou Teyuan Watch Industry Co., Ltd. as defendant in the first instance and respondent in the second instance, regarding a dispute over unauthorized use of signs identical or similar to the trade dress of another party with certain influence
The adjudication in this case gradually unfolded around the issue of protection of trade dress consisting of product shape and configuration. First, the shape and configuration of the product itself may constitute the “trade dress” as referred to in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, provided that it has distinctive features capable of identifying the source of the goods and does not fall within functional designs determined by the nature of the goods themselves, technical effects or substantial value. Second, the termination of a patent right does not automatically mean that the market recognition interests formed by the appearance lose protection. As long as an operator, through continuous use and promotion, accumulates market reputation for such appearance and establishes a stable association with a specific source of goods, it may still obtain protection when the conditions under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are met. On this basis, the court comprehensively considered factors such as duration of sales, sales regions, intensity of promotion and stability of the trade dress, and confirmed that the trade dress at issue had formed a stable corresponding relationship with the right holder and constituted trade dress with certain influence. Based on the above findings, the defendants’ use, on identical goods, of trade dress that is visually almost indistinguishable from the trade dress at issue, is sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the goods originate from the right holder or have a specific connection with the right holder, even though the accused products use different trademarks and differ in price and quality. Evidence of actual confusion further corroborated this determination.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
The “GA-110” series watches produced and sold by Casio Computer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Casio”) enjoy a high level of market recognition among the relevant public, and nine design features of this series jointly constitute its trade dress. Shenzhen Tasgo Watch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tasgo”) and Guangzhou Teyuan Watch Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Teyuan”) were accused of manufacturing and selling watches under the “TASGO/特斯高” brand, the trade dress of which, apart from differences in trademark indications and the like, is basically identical in overall visual effect to the above trade dress of Casio. Casio contended that such conduct constituted unfair competition by unauthorized use of signs identical or similar to the trade dress of another party with certain influence, and therefore sought an injunction against infringement and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 5 million.
The court of first instance found that the trade dress at issue constituted trade dress with certain influence, and that the conduct of Tasgo and Teyuan constituted unfair competition. After comprehensively considering factors such as sales volume, fake transactions (“brushing”), and subjective fault, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, ordered the two defendants to be jointly and severally liable for compensation of RMB 3 million. Both Casio and Tasgo were dissatisfied and appealed. Upon trial, the court of second instance dismissed the appeals and upheld the original judgment. Tasgo subsequently applied for retrial. Upon examination, the Supreme People’s Court held that the trade dress at issue belonged to trade dress consisting of product shape and configuration, had distinctive features for distinguishing the source of the goods, and, through long-term use by Casio, had acquired a high level of market recognition, sufficient to be found as trade dress with certain influence. The accused products used, on identical goods, trade dress that is visually almost indistinguishable, which is sufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public and therefore constituted unfair competition. The discretionary award of RMB 3 million in compensation by the courts of first and second instance was not obviously inappropriate, and the Court therefore ruled to dismiss Tasgo’s application for retrial.
&nbsp;
<h2>Key Points of the Judgment</h2>
<h3>1. Trade dress consisting of product shape and configuration may be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law</h3>
Words, patterns, colors and their arrangement and combination, which have distinctive features and are used to identify and beautify goods, may constitute the trade dress as referred to in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Trade dress is not limited to packaging design, nor does it automatically exclude the shape of the product itself. Functional shapes arising from the nature of the goods themselves, technical effects or substantial value are generally not protected, whereas shapes that, apart from such functional elements, have decorative and beautifying effects and can identify the source may be protected. The nine design features of the GA-110 series watches asserted by Casio are not functional designs, and their combination clearly distinguishes them from other watches on the market, having distinctive features for distinguishing the source, and therefore constitutes trade dress protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. Expiry of a patent does not automatically preclude protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law</h3>
The expiry of the design patent for the appearance of the trade dress at issue does not automatically result in the trade dress no longer being protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The objects, conditions and purposes of protection under the Patent Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are different. The appearance of the same product may simultaneously involve protection as a design patent and as trade dress under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. After the expiry of the design patent right, if the relevant appearance, through use, meets the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it may still be protected. Such protection is based on the market recognition interests and competitive interests formed by the operator, and does not constitute a disguised extension of the patent protection term.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. The trade dress at issue constitutes trade dress “with certain influence”</h3>
The evidence on record shows that the GA-110 series watches of Casio have been sold for a relatively long period, across a wide range of regions, and in large amounts, and, through continuous and extensive promotion, have acquired a high level of market recognition in mainland China. Over more than ten years, the nine design features of this trade dress have remained basically stable, and the overall appearance has been consistent, forming a stable association with Casio, such that the relevant public can identify the source of the goods through the trade dress. Therefore, this trade dress constitutes trade dress with certain market recognition and distinctive features.
&nbsp;
<h3>4. The accused conduct constitutes unfair competition and the compensation is reasonable</h3>
The defendants used, on identical goods, trade dress that is visually almost indistinguishable from the trade dress of Casio which has certain influence, which is sufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public, and actual confusion has occurred. Differences between the accused products and the goods at issue in respect of trademarks, price, quality and other aspects are insufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion, and therefore the accused conduct constitutes unfair competition. Taking into account factors such as sales volume and sales price through different channels, fake transactions (“brushing”), subjective fault, circumstances of infringement and reasonable expenses, the discretionary award of RMB 3 million in compensation by the courts of first and second instance is not inappropriate.
&nbsp;
<h2>Read the Judgment in This Case</h2>
<a href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/mp/wappoc_appmsgcaptcha?poc_token=HPY9Mmqj5R7mDhLwWMb9SP2UsppCNmfln3aagVV0&amp;target_url=https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650152383&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=300ce3549aa306d9ea43fcf86a9a35d8&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect">Competition | Supreme Court: Award of RMB 3 million in damages! Trade dress of CASIO GA-110 series watches constitutes trade dress with certain influence</a>

Supreme Court: GA-110 watch design is influential trade dress; 3,000,000 yuan awarded

Eve Cheng

<ul class="list-paddingleft-2">
<li>
Appeal by Quanzhou New *lun Technology Co., Ltd., Quanzhou New *he Footwear Co., Ltd., Chen *lai, Quanzhou Sheng * Footwear Co., Ltd., and Chen *zhou v. New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. as appellee and Liangxi District Jia * Footwear &amp; Apparel Store as original-instance defendant regarding a dispute over unauthorized use of another’s commodity get-up with certain influence
</li>
</ul>
The adjudicative reasoning in this case unfolds along the following lines. The court first examined whether the get-up asserted by the plaintiff falls within the scope of “commodity get-up with certain influence,” with the criteria including the place of use of such get-up, the form of the font, the duration of continuous use, the scale of publicity, and market recognition; effective judgments may be used for reference. At the stage of comparing similarity of get-up, the standard is the overall visual effect; although the accused sign contains small embedded English words, the overall presentation still prominently displays capital bold letters and is used at the same position on the goods. On this basis, the court found that similarity is constituted and is sufficient to cause confusion. As to the defendant’s defense that the accused sign is a registered trademark, the court held that the right holder is entitled to choose commodity get-up as the basis of its rights, and where such get-up is used earlier and has certain influence, the status of registration of the trademark does not affect the determination of unfair competition. With respect to the amount of damages, after the right holder completed the burden of proof by means such as notarized evidence collection and applying to the court to obtain transaction data, the court extrapolated single-store sales volume using sales data from some stores as samples, and calculated the infringer’s profits by reference to the profit margin of similar products of listed companies in the same industry; where the infringer possesses evidence of actual sales but refuses to provide it, it shall bear the adverse consequences of failure to discharge the burden of proof. In addition, where multiple entities have close division of labor and cooperation in respect of domicile, packaging, domain name filing, publicity, etc., they constitute joint infringement and shall bear joint and several liability.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
Through long-term and extensive publicity and sales, “New Balance” sports shoes have achieved extremely high market recognition and influence among the relevant public for the capital, bold “N” letter get-up used at the prominent positions on both sides of the shoes. This “N” letter get-up has been recognized in multiple effective judgments, including those of the Supreme People’s Court, as commodity get-up with certain influence. The plaintiff discovered that the defendants, including New * Company, New * Company, Sheng * Company and other entities, had, on a large scale nationwide, produced and sold sports shoes bearing the involved sign “<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/alsnuusd/字母n.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=30&amp;height=30" alt="" width="30" height="30">” via online e-commerce platforms and offline physical stores (self-claimed to exceed 1,000 stores). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, by unauthorized use of signs similar to its well-known commodity get-up, acted with obvious subjective malice and on a massive scale, thereby constituting unfair competition, and thus filed suit with the court, requesting that all defendants be ordered to cease the infringement, eliminate the adverse impact, and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 15 million.
The court, upon trial, held that the accused infringing sign “N” presents, in its overall visual effect, the capital, bold “<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/tncogbhq/字母n.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=30&amp;height=30" alt="" width="30" height="30">” letter, and the small English words embedded therein do not affect the overall identification. This sign is basically indistinguishable from the plaintiff’s “N” letter get-up in overall visual effect, and thus constitutes similarity sufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public. In determining the amount of damages, the court, by investigating the turnover records of some infringing stores, selecting the detailed transaction data of one infringing store as a sample to extrapolate the profit margin, and referring to the public financial reports of listed companies in the same industry, comprehensively determined the infringer’s profits. On this basis, the court rendered judgment ordering all defendants to cease the infringement, destroy inventory, publish a statement in China Intellectual Property News to eliminate the adverse impact, and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses in the amount of RMB 15 million. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, the defendants appealed. The second-instance judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
&nbsp;
<h2>Gist of the Judgment</h2>
<h3>1. Overcoming the defense based on registered trademarks and achieving substantive protection of get-up through the Anti-Unfair Competition Law</h3>
The difficulty in this case lies in the fact that the accused infringing sign “<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/j42b4wqh/字母n.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=30&amp;height=30" alt="" width="30" height="30">” is, in its form of use, largely consistent with the defendants’ registered trademark, and if the plaintiff were to assert only trademark infringement, it would be easy for the defendants to raise the defense of “legitimate use of a registered trademark.” The court accepted that the “N” letter get-up asserted by the right holder has strong distinctiveness on specific footwear products and may constitute commodity get-up with certain influence; meanwhile, in the course of trial, starting from the overall visual effect and the manner of use by the defendants, the court found that the defendants, by prominently using the similar accused infringing sign “<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/ywcb0hew/字母n.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=30&amp;height=30" alt="" width="30" height="30">” to engage in free-riding, caused confusion and misidentification among the relevant public, thereby constituting unfair competition. This adjudicative approach provides a replicable enforcement strategy for addressing “parasitic imitation cloaked in trademark registration.”
<h3>2. Penetrating recognition of a multi-entity division-of-labor chain and ordering joint infringers to bear joint and several liability</h3>
In light of the characteristics of an integrated infringement chain formed through division of labor and collaboration among multiple affiliated companies and key individuals, the right holder fully adduced evidence of the substantive participation of each defendant in production, manufacturing, and business activities, including direct involvement of major shareholders in the infringing acts. The court ultimately found that all defendants constituted joint infringement and, in accordance with the law, shall bear joint and several liability. This determination effectively blocked the infringers’ attempt to evade legal liability through the use of companies and significantly enhanced the enforceability of the judgment.
<h3>3. Refined calculation of infringer’s profits resulting in a high damages award of RMB 15 million</h3>
Given the large scale of the defendants’ infringement and the concealed nature of their profits, the right holder, through multiple notarized purchases and sorting of payment and transaction data, established a formula for calculating the defendants’ infringing profits, and applied to the court to investigate the turnover records of some infringing stores. The court further selected the detailed transaction data of one infringing store as a sample to extrapolate the profit margin, and referred to the public financial reports of listed companies in the same industry, thereby providing sufficient and reasonable calculation grounds for the high damages award of RMB 15 million.
&nbsp;
<h2>Read the Judgment in This Case</h2>
<a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/mp/wappoc_appmsgcaptcha?poc_token=HAQHGGqjG5DP1NXaNKg19V3xhaWD7YXPW_5p8WLv&amp;target_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmp.weixin.qq.com%2Fs%3F__biz%3DMzA4MDYxMjczNA%3D%3D%26mid%3D2650152275%26idx%3D1%26sn%3Da3f293beb8678818849a5e28a62898ae%26scene%3D21#wechat_redirect?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650152275&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=a3f293beb8678818849a5e28a62898ae&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2" data-anchor="?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650152275&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=a3f293beb8678818849a5e28a62898ae&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect">Competition | Jiangsu High People’s Court: RMB 15 Million Awarded! Final Judgment Rendered in Large-Scale Imitation of “New Balance” Sports Shoe Get-up Unfair Competition Case</a>

Lusheng wins New Balance unfair competition case; Jiangsu High Court awards RMB 15m

<ul class="list-paddingleft-2">
<li>
Appeal by Shanghai Meng [X] Food Co., Ltd. and Zhangjiagang Jin [X] Food Trading Firm v. Spin Master Ltd. and the original trial defendants Fujian Rui [X] Food Co., Ltd., Fujian Xia [X] Food Co., Ltd., and Fujian Shen [X] Food Co., Ltd. regarding a dispute over copyright infringement
</li>
</ul>
In this case, the defendants applied to register as trademarks the cartoon images in which the right holder enjoys copyright, and raised such registrations as a defense. When faced with a conflict between two types of rights, the court strictly adhered to the core principle of protecting prior rights, and found that the cartoon images used by the defendants were substantially similar to the plaintiff’s copyrighted works. The defendants’ preemptive registration of the trademarks further highlighted their intent to infringe, which was negatively evaluated by the court and became an important factor in determining the amount of damages. As to liability, the court found that the commissioning party had subjective intent to infringe, while the OEM manufacturers and sellers failed to fulfill their reasonable duty of review, thereby effectively pursuing liability along the entire chain of infringement. Finally, in determining the amount of damages, the court comprehensively considered factors such as the scale of infringement, the infringing intent, the contribution rate of the copyrighted works, and the reasonable expenses incurred in rights protection, and applied statutory damages at its discretion, while at the same time reflecting punitive elements against malicious infringement.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Facts of the Case</h2>
"PAW Patrol" is a representative series of animated works of Spin Master Ltd. The right holder owns the artistic work "PAW Patrol Cartoon Characters," which includes the cartoon character image named Marshall—a white spotted dog wearing a red vest, a red helmet and a yellow collar, with a shield-shaped badge on its chest—embodying original artistic design.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/tuso23kc/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=425&amp;height=437" alt="" width="425" height="437">
In 2021, the right holder discovered that Shanghai Meng [X] Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Meng [X] Company"), without permission, had authorized three Fujian food enterprises to manufacture on an OEM basis multiple seaweed roll products, and used on the product packaging a "cartoon dog" image that was substantially similar to the image of Marshall. The above-mentioned products were sold in large quantities through e-commerce platforms such as Taobao and Tmall, as well as offline supermarkets and convenience stores across the country, and Zhangjiagang Jin [X] Food Trading Firm (hereinafter "Jin [X] Food Trading Firm") also participated in the sales channels. In addition, during the period from 2017 to 2019, Meng [X] Company applied for multiple trademarks imitating "PAW Patrol." Although these trademarks were approved for registration, the China National Intellectual Property Administration declared them invalid on 18 May 2020, and the subsequent administrative litigation brought by Meng [X] Company was also dismissed.
The court of first instance, after trial, found that although the "cartoon dog" image on the packaging of the accused infringing products and the copyrighted work both drew on elements from the public domain and there were minor differences in certain parts, the image contained numerous original features of the Marshall image in the copyrighted work (such as the red vest, helmet shield pattern, paw elements, etc.), and that the two were substantially similar in artistic expression. The court also found that Meng [X] Company, the three Fujian OEM manufacturers and Jin [X] Food Trading Firm constituted joint infringement. Taking into comprehensive consideration factors such as the fame of the work, the defendants’ malicious trademark applications, the scale of infringement, and the contribution rate of the work to the value of the products, the court, at its discretion, ordered Meng [X] Company and the three OEM manufacturers to jointly compensate RMB 2.5 million, and held Jin [X] Food Trading Firm jointly and severally liable for RMB 100,000 thereof. This judgment was fully upheld by the court of second instance.
&nbsp;
<h2>Key Points of the Judgment</h2>
<ol class="list-paddingleft-1">
<li>
Implementation of the principle of protecting prior rights: Although the defendants had once applied to register as trademarks the cartoon images in which the plaintiff enjoys copyright, the court did not allow this to affect the finding of copyright infringement. On the basis of ascertaining that the plaintiff’s rights were prior in time, that the work enjoyed a high degree of recognition, and that the parties’ works were substantially similar, the court held that the defendants’ acts of use constituted copyright infringement. The defendants’ preemptive trademark registrations not only failed to constitute an effective defense, but instead became an important basis for finding subjective bad faith.
</li>
<li>
Crackdown on the entire chain of infringement: In addition to the preemptive registrant, and in light of the extremely high recognition of the copyrighted work, the court held that other links in the chain of infringement, namely the OEM manufacturers and distributors of the infringing products involved in the case, also bore liability as they failed to fulfill their duty of prudent review, and thus constituted joint infringement.
</li>
<li>
Reflecting punitive elements while applying statutory damages: In this case, the court, in determining the amount of damages at its discretion, comprehensively considered factors such as the scale of the defendants’ infringement, the recognition, commercial value and contribution rate of the copyrighted work, and the reasonable expenses incurred in rights protection, and explicitly reflected punitive elements by increasing the severity of sanctions against malicious infringement.
</li>
</ol>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;Read the Judgment in This Case
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650152141&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=18d435c7133c9a182bb6adb4f42ade97&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Copyright | Jiangsu High People’s Court: Unauthorized use of "PAW Patrol" images and malicious preemptive trademark registration, damages of RMB 2.5 million awarded</a>

Lusheng secures victory in Spin Master copyright infringement case

Ciara Huang

Alice Hou

<h2>Appeal by Amer Sports Trading concerning a dispute over trademark infringement</h2>
The core of the court’s reasoning in this case lies in first determining that the alleged conduct constituted trademark infringement, namely that the infringer, in violation of the trademark owner’s intent, placed into the market defective goods that had been entrusted to it for destruction, thereby undermining the quality‑assurance function of the trademark, which does not fall within trademark exhaustion or fair use. On this basis, the court further examined the conditions for the application of punitive damages: the infringer clearly knew that the goods should not be circulated, yet still concealed the truth by issuing false destruction certificates and selling the goods without authorization, which may be deemed as subjective bad faith; moreover, the infringer’s profits from the infringement exceeded RMB 400,000 and could potentially cause greater losses to the right holder, which may be deemed as constituting “serious circumstances.” Accordingly, using the infringer’s profits as ascertained in the criminal proceedings as the base amount, and comprehensively considering the bad faith and the seriousness of the circumstances, the court determined punitive damages at five times that base amount, and at the same time included reasonable rights‑protection expenses within the scope of compensation. As for the right holder’s claims regarding goods pending sale and other unascertained transactions, due to the lack of sufficient evidence proving that they were intended for sale, such claims were not upheld. This adjudicative approach clarifies the criteria for determining that the unauthorized sale of defective goods entrusted for destruction constitutes trademark infringement, as well as the specific requirements for the application of punitive damages in such entrusted‑destruction scenarios.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Facts</h2>
Amer Sports Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Amer Sports”) once entrusted a company actually operated by Ji to destroy its defective and out‑of‑season branded products. From September 2018 to June 2020, without actually destroying them, Ji sold to the public multiple branded products under Amer Sports that should have been destroyed, illegally obtaining profits of RMB 418,414, and forged destruction certificates to fraudulently obtain fees. The court of first instance held that Ji’s conduct constituted trademark infringement and ordered Ji to compensate economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000. Believing that the amount awarded was insufficient to make good its losses, Amer Sports appealed. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court on second instance held that Ji clearly knew that the goods involved were items pending destruction that must not enter the market, yet still sold them externally over a long period and in a concealed manner, and forged destruction documents to cover up the infringing acts, evidencing obvious subjective bad faith and serious circumstances. Accordingly, using Ji’s profits from the infringement as the base amount, the court determined the amount of compensation at five times that base, and in accordance with the law revised the judgment, ordering Ji to compensate economic losses totaling RMB 2,092,070 and reasonable expenses of RMB 100,000.
&nbsp;
<h2>Gist of the Judgment</h2>
The court made it clear that, where genuine goods entrusted for destruction are sold without authorization, even though the goods themselves are produced by the right holder, such conduct constitutes the infringing act of “causing other damage to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of another person” as provided in Article 57(7) of the Trademark Law. The rationale is that such goods, due to defects or being out of season, have been designated by the right holder to be withdrawn from circulation channels; their unauthorized sale undermines the quality‑control and goodwill‑protection functions carried by the trademark and impairs consumers’ trust in the brand’s quality, and therefore the principle of “exhaustion of rights” does not apply.
The court of second instance, taking into account such circumstances as the infringer’s long‑term storage of a large quantity of goods pending destruction, systematic fabrication of destruction records, and profit‑making sales through concealed channels, found that the infringer’s subjective bad faith was obvious, the infringement lasted for a long period, and the amount of profits was large, thereby satisfying the requirement of “serious circumstances.” On this basis, the court, using the infringing profits of RMB 418,414 as the base amount, imposed compensation at five times that amount in accordance with the law, thereby fully reflecting the punitive orientation of the Trademark Law toward malicious infringement.
&nbsp;
<h2>Read the Judgment in this Case</h2>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650151745&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=be814640005729654212f4abc415ab86&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Trademark | Shanghai Intellectual Property Court: Sale of goods entrusted for destruction held to constitute trademark infringement; second instance revises judgment and awards fivefold punitive damages</a>

Lusheng secures victory for Amer Sports in trademark infringement case

Sunny Su

<ul class="list-paddingleft-1">
<li>
The infringing party was ordered to bear substantial damages and to immediately cease all infringing acts.
</li>
<li>
On 31 December 2025, the Supreme People’s Court upheld the first-instance judgment rendered by the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court, thereby establishing a strong judicial precedent for the handling of similar infringement cases in China.
</li>
</ul>
Following its earlier success before the Supreme People’s Court, Lusheng, in cooperation with its strategic partner in China, Rouse, once again secured final-instance support from the Supreme Court for ENZAFruit New Zealand International Limited (“ENZAFruit”), a subsidiary of T&amp;G Global Limited (“T&amp;G”). In this case, the Chinese defendants, without the permission of the right holder, illegally produced and propagated propagation materials of the Scilate variety/brand name ENVY, and sold the relevant infringing harvested materials. This case constitutes another landmark and critical victory in the enforcement actions initiated by T&amp;G in Shandong Province, China’s major apple growing region and production area, against infringements of the Scilate variety. The judgment also upheld the first-instance judgment rendered by the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province in April 2025.
The defendants produced and propagated propagation materials of the Scilate variety and sold the relevant infringing harvested materials through multiple online and offline channels. In addition, during the course of sales, although the infringers used different names to designate their products, they nevertheless deliberately used a brand similar to T&amp;G’s well-known trademark ENVY for promotional purposes, in an attempt to free-ride on its goodwill and obtain unlawful gains.
In view of the scale of the infringing acts and the degree of subjective bad faith, the court ordered the defendants to pay substantial damages to ENZAFruit, and required them to cease producing and propagating propagation materials of the Scilate variety, to cease selling the harvested materials obtained therefrom, and to destroy the illegally propagated materials.
The Supreme People’s Court rejected the defendants’ “lawful source” defense and held that the determination of infringement should adhere to an overall assessment. Where the alleged infringer has both produced and propagated propagation materials of the authorized variety and sold the harvested materials obtained from such propagation materials, the alleged infringing acts shall be considered and evaluated as a whole. In addition, the Court emphasized that the living cells in the fruit and leaves of apples both contain DNA, which can be used for testing; therefore, using harvested materials of the alleged infringing variety as samples for testing complies with the Technical Specification for Identification of Apple Varieties – SSR Molecular Marker Method. Using harvested materials of the alleged infringing variety as the object of testing can greatly facilitate the right holder’s collection of evidence, which undoubtedly helps to further protect the legitimate rights and interests of the variety right holder.
&nbsp;
<h2>Client Testimonials</h2>
Gareth Edgecombe, Chief Executive Officer of T&amp;G Global:
“This judgment of the Supreme People’s Court fully reflects China’s firm determination, in the context of thoroughly implementing the Seed Law, to protect new plant variety rights and to curb illegal production and infringing activities. This is the second time that the Supreme Court has rendered a decision in favor of T&amp;G, establishing a strong judicial precedent for the handling of similar infringement cases in China. This judgment, together with the recently revised Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, will benefit plant breeders, growers, consumers and the entire horticultural industry, and has further strengthened T&amp;G’s confidence in continuing to invest in the Chinese market, as we are assured that our intellectual property rights will receive full and effective protection in China.”
&nbsp;
<h2>Case-handling Insights from the Lusheng Team</h2>
Sunny Su, China Head of Digital &amp; Commercial in this case:
“This judgment of the Supreme People’s Court is of landmark significance for both domestic and international agricultural brands. It fully demonstrates the practical effectiveness of the revised Seed Law and sends a clear signal to the market that China’s legislative and judicial systems are genuinely safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of right holders. The decision also serves as a strong warning to the industry that any acts of illegal propagation, harvesting or sale of infringing products will be strictly pursued for legal liability. In addition, the recent successful compulsory enforcement in Gansu, where a large number of illegally infringing Scilate variety apple trees were cut down and destroyed, has further implemented the effective judgment in practice, genuinely safeguarding the interests of all right holders and upholding social fairness and justice.”
&nbsp;
Liping Xu, Principal:
“At present, infringement methods in the field of new plant varieties are becoming increasingly covert, and harvested materials have become an important clue for right holders to trace the source of infringement. Since the revision of the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judiciary and law enforcement authorities have rendered numerous representative penalty decisions and judgments concerning infringements involving illegal harvested materials, expressly extending infringement liability from illegal propagation materials to the harvested materials obtained from such illegal propagation.”

Lusheng secures another victory for ENZAFruit’s Scilate apple variety rights at the Supreme People’s Court

Sharon Qiao

Lin Cong

Lusheng Law Firm (Rouse International Strategic Partner), acting for Zespri Group Limited of New Zealand (Zespri), successfully safeguarded the plant new variety rights of New Zealand kiwifruit growers before the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court and obtained a landmark victory. This case was primarily handled by Lusheng senior partner Sharon Qiao and Ling Jin, Honorary Managing Partner of Shanghai Office.
&nbsp;
In this case, the court of first instance upheld all of Zespri’s claims, finding that the two defendants, without authorization, had produced, sold and promoted Zespri’s protected kiwifruit variety “SunGold” (Gold3, “G3” for short), and that such acts constituted infringement. The principal defendant was ordered to immediately cease the infringement, eliminate the infringing propagating materials, and compensate Zespri for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses in a total amount of RMB 5.246 million.
&nbsp;
The judgment in this case reflects the protection afforded by Chinese courts to the rights and interests of international plant breeders, while at the same time resolving the long‑standing evidentiary difficulties in the enforcement of plant new variety rights, and establishing a new judicial adjudication standard for similar cases.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Handling Insights from the Lusheng Team</h2>
Sharon Qiao, senior partner at Lusheng and lead counsel in this case:
“This case reflects the enhanced protection of plant new variety rights following the 2022 amendment to China’s Seed Law, and also demonstrates the strong support of local judicial authorities in the field of intellectual property protection.”
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Client Testimonial</h2>
Jason Te Brake, CEO of Zespri:
“This case marks a critical step forward in protecting growers’ interests and maintaining the integrity of premium kiwifruit varieties. China is an important market for Zespri, and this victory further strengthens our commitment to working with our partners to build a sustainable and trusted kiwifruit industry, enabling growers, distributors and consumers to share in the benefits of development.”
&nbsp;
<h2>About Zespri</h2>
Zespri is 100% owned by current and former kiwifruit growers and is headquartered in Mount Maunganui, New Zealand, with more than 900 employees across Asia, Europe and the Americas. Zespri is committed to promoting the shared prosperity of people, communities and the environment through the health benefits of kiwifruit. Zespri works with 2,800 growers in New Zealand and 1,500 growers overseas to provide consumers around the world with fresh, delicious and healthy Zespri Green, Zespri RubyRed and SunGold kiwifruit.
In the 2024/25 season, Zespri supplied 220.9 million trays (over 795,000 tonnes) of kiwifruit to consumers in more than 50 markets worldwide, achieving global operating revenue of NZD 5.14 billion.

Lusheng helped Zespri win a landmark victory in China PVR protection

The appellants Yu Mou, Wen Moumou, and Zhao Moumou were involved in a dispute over unfair competition with the respondent Amer Sports Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
Amer Sports Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. asserted that the trade dress of its Salomon brand XT-QUEST series sports shoes (including such features as mountain-shaped broken lines, banded decorations, and eyelets) constituted “commodity trade dress with certain influence” and was therefore protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Yu Mou, Wen Moumou, and Zhao Moumou sold footwear products highly similar to such trade dress through their Taobao store “Unclewen稳叔”. Amer Sports contended that their conduct constituted confusion, and thus brought an action before the court, requesting cessation of the infringement and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 4 million.
The court of first instance, the Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court, found that Yu Mou, Wen Moumou, and Zhao Moumou had committed joint infringement, and ordered them to immediately cease the manufacture and sale of the infringing products, and to jointly and severally compensate Amer Sports for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling approximately RMB 3.3958 million. Dissatisfied, the three appealed. Upon trial, the court of second instance, the Sichuan High People’s Court, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Gist of the Judgment</h2>
<h3>1. Delimitation of the scope of protection for trade dress:</h3>
The infringers argued that elements such as the “mountain-shaped broken lines” were functional designs and should enter the public domain. The court held that the trade dress at issue was “pattern-type trade dress” and did not constitute a product shape necessary for achieving a technical effect, and that it had acquired distinctiveness in the perception of consumers in identifying the source of goods. Accordingly, it should be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
<h3>2. Clarification of the relationship between the lapse of design patent rights and protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law:</h3>
The infringers contended that, after the lapse of the design patent right, protection could no longer be extended by invoking the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; otherwise, the statutory term of patent protection would be rendered meaningless. The court explicitly stated that, in the field of intellectual property, a single subject matter may be simultaneously protected by multiple intellectual property rights, and the termination of one right does not necessarily result in the simultaneous loss of effect of other rights. If another party’s use of the appearance design of a certain product is sufficient to cause the relevant public to become confused or mistaken as to the source of the goods, such subsequent use would improperly exploit the goodwill of the prior user of that appearance design and constitute unfair competition. Therefore, upon the termination of a design patent right, the design does not automatically enter the public domain; where the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are met, it may still be protected by that law.
<h3>3. Method of calculating infringer’s profits:</h3>
In circumstances where the infringers refused to provide financial information, how to reasonably infer their profits from infringement became a difficulty. Based on transaction records obtained from the Taobao platform and by reference to the gross profit margin of listed companies in the same industry (the lowest being 41.4%) as the basis for calculation, the court pointed out that the infringers had obvious subjective bad faith in committing the infringement and had objectively saved research and development and promotion costs. Therefore, the adoption of gross profit margin rather than net profit margin was reasonable.
<h3>4. Determination of joint infringement:</h3>
The court, taking into account such factors as trademark use, store promotion, and production capacity, comprehensively determined that there existed a common intention and coordinated conduct among Yu Mou, Wen Moumou, and Zhao Moumou, thereby constituting joint infringement, for which they should bear joint and several liability.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Commentary</h2>
<ul>
<li>Clarifying the boundary between protection of trade dress and patent rights:</li>
</ul>
The judgment emphasizes that, even if a design patent has lapsed, as long as the trade dress has acquired distinctiveness and influence in the market, it may still be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
<ul>
<li>Strengthening the punitive orientation against malicious infringement:</li>
</ul>
In calculating damages, the court comprehensively considered factors such as the infringers’ subjective bad faith, obstruction of evidence, and attempts to deregister entities to evade liability, and supported the calculation of profits based on gross profit margin, reflecting a tendency toward punitive compensation for malicious and large-scale infringement.
<ul>
<li>Harmonizing adjudicative standards in similar cases:</li>
</ul>
This case provides a clear adjudicative approach for determining “free-riding” confusion-type acts, methods of presuming profits from infringement, and the constituent elements of joint infringement, which is conducive to unifying judicial standards in the identification of protection for trade dress and unfair competition acts.
&nbsp;
<h2>Read the judgment in this case</h2>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650148345&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=47a4bb1af05b99ebc42071d94cdd2c66&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Competition | Sichuan High People’s Court: RMB 3.39 million in damages awarded! The mountain-shaped broken lines of SALOMON’s classic shoe model constitute trade dress with certain influence</a>

Lusheng successfully helps SALOMON protect its classic footwear, with its mountain-shaped zigzag line constituting influential trade dress, awarded 3.39 million yuan in damages

Xin Li

Emma Zhou

Cartier and Guangzhou Watch Company dispute over unauthorized use of another party’s product get-up with certain influence.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Summary</h2>
Cartier is one of the world’s leading luxury goods suppliers. The “Cartier” brand was founded in Paris, France in 1847 and has since been renowned worldwide for its exquisitely designed jewelry and watch products. In 1983, Cartier officially entered China. After more than thirty years of development, Cartier has opened more than 40 boutiques and numerous franchised stores in China. As one of the most popular products of the Cartier brand worldwide, the Cartier Tank watch not only enjoys a high reputation globally, but has also been widely recognized and admired by Chinese consumers since its entry into the Chinese market, and is well known to the relevant public. It has accumulated substantial fame and influence, and its get-up constitutes “product get-up with certain influence” protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Cartier discovered that Guangzhou Watch Companies without authorization, manufactured and sold watch products whose get-up was highly similar to the product get-up with certain influence of the Cartier Tank watch, and that such conduct had already caused confusion and misidentification among relevant consumers. Their conduct constituted unfair competition, and Cartier therefore filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court.
Upon trial, the court found that: (1) the get-up of the Cartier Tank watch constitutes product get-up with certain influence, and the manufacture and sale by Guangzhou Watch Companies of watch products whose get-up is identical or similar to the Tank watch get-up with certain influence of Cartier constitute unfair competition; (2) Guangzhou Watch Companies acted with obvious subjective bad faith; (3) the accused infringing products were launched in November 2017, were manufactured and sold in large quantities and over a wide scope, involving platforms such as Tmall, JD.com, Pinduoduo, and Douyin, and it was publicly claimed that there were 140 offline sales outlets nationwide; (5) the accused infringing products had a relatively high profit margin. The court therefore determined, based on the upper limit of statutory damages, that Guangzhou Watch Companies shall compensate Cartier for economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 5 million.
Guangzhou Watch Companies dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, filed an appeal. Upon trial, the court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Key Points of the Judgment</h2>
<h4>On Issue 1: Whether the get-up of the Cartier Tank series watches constitutes “product get-up with certain influence” as provided in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law</h4>
When determining whether the indicia provided in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law have a certain degree of market recognition, the people’s court shall comprehensively consider such factors as the degree of awareness among the relevant public within the territory of China, the time, region, volume, and targets of product sales, the duration, extent, and geographical scope of publicity, and the circumstances of protection of the indicia.
Cartier contended that the Cartier Tank watch for which it sought protection was designed with unique features based on the reference to the shape of a tank, and that its inherent distinctiveness in get-up is manifested in the rectangular dial, vertically parallel lugs, and railway track minute markers. Since entering the Chinese market, the Cartier brand has carried out extensive and continuous publicity for the Cartier brand and the Cartier Tank series watches through online and offline advertising and numerous physical stores across the country. The Cartier brand enjoys a high degree of fame, and the Cartier Tank series watches have also become products with certain influence. At the same time, the sword-shaped hands, Roman numerals radiating outward from the central axis, and cabochon sapphire crown in the get-up of the Cartier Tank series watches have also acquired distinctive features through continuous publicity and use. The inherently distinctive design elements in the get-up of the Cartier Tank series watches and the distinctive design elements acquired through use together constitute product get-up with a high degree of fame that is capable of distinguishing the source of goods, and fall within “product get-up with certain influence” as provided in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China. 
<h4>On Issue 2: Whether the get-up of the accused infringing products is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public as to the source of the goods</h4>
The two defendants, without authorization, used on their watches product get-up similar to that of the Cartier Tank watch. It is difficult for the relevant public not to mistakenly believe that the two products originate from the same provider or that there is a specific connection between the providers of the two products, such as licensed use or an affiliated enterprise relationship. Trademarks and product get-up are different commercial indicia. Even if the two defendants also used their own trademarks on their products, this cannot eliminate the confusion as to source caused by the use of similar product get-up. The relevant public is not limited to consumers who actually purchased the accused infringing products, but also includes business operators and other potential purchasers. The substantial price difference between the accused infringing products and Cartier’s products cannot negate the possibility of confusion as to source between the two products. 
<h4>On Issue 3: Whether the amount of damages for infringement determined in the first-instance judgment is appropriate The court comprehensively considered:</h4>
(1) the product get-up of the Cartier Tank watch has already acquired certain influence in the minds of the relevant public, and the two defendants, as professional watchmaking companies, manufactured watches by imitating Cartier’s product get-up, demonstrating very obvious subjective bad faith;
(2) the two defendants failed to cease the infringing acts after receiving multiple warning letters, which constitutes willful infringement with serious circumstances;
(3) the two defendants are the manufacturers and sellers of the infringing products and are the source of the infringing products;
(4) the duration of the infringement was long;
(5) the unit price of the accused infringing products exceeds RMB 2,000, and they were sold on multiple platforms with huge sales volume;
(6) Cartier’s reasonable expenses for rights protection and other factors, and ordered the two defendants to jointly compensate Cartier for economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 5 million.
&nbsp;
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/jjoncglr/img_8302147838406489306_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=806&amp;height=379" alt="" width="806" height="379">
Appendix: Product comparison chart
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Read the judgment in this case</h2>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650145646&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=6e5051239f2a6fabb1a579a3763ce78f&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2" data-anchor="?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650145646&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=6e5051239f2a6fabb1a579a3763ce78f&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect">Overview | Guangdong High People’s Court: Richemont Prevails in Rights Protection Action, Get-up of Cartier Tank Series Watches Protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Award of RMB 5 Million in Damages</a>

Lusheng secures victory for Richemont: Cartier Tank series watch trade dress gains protection under anti-unfair competition law, awarded 5 million yuan in damages

Recently, the Beijing Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance (CAASA) held a grand ceremony in Beijing to celebrate its 10th anniversary under the theme “Advancing Step by Step, Embracing AI.” At the ceremony, a list of award-winning typical intellectual property cases for 2025 was announced. By virtue of their cutting-edge and exemplary nature, cases represented by Lusheng Law Firm were honored and selected as "Model Cases of International Cooperation" by the Beijing Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance (CAASA) . Landy Jiang, Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution， attended the event and went on stage to receive the award.
&nbsp;
<h2>Lusheng Shortlisted</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/media/atojqvjy/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=740&amp;height=525" alt="" width="740" height="525">
&nbsp;
<h2>Photos from the Event</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/media/uxxmk1mo/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=737&amp;height=483" alt="" width="737" height="483">
Landy Jiang (second from the left), Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution
Receiving the award on stage
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Recent Representative Cases of Lusheng – A Brief Review</h2>
<ul class="list-paddingleft-1">
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247512215&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=a80d18ed23b9db1b89617aae2029d3a6&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Victory in the second instance! Lusheng assists the parent company of iFrutti Apple in securing a landmark win, with the Supreme People’s Court upholding the damages award of RMB 3.3 million</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247519123&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=2c0186d0d0332a387e4b9b5aceece786&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng assists Zespri in achieving a landmark victory in the protection of new plant variety rights in China</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247516687&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=384196cec5444f6ff38eee07293e7b11&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng assists BLOOM FRESH in securing a breakthrough victory in its first litigation in China concerning new plant variety rights</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247518920&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=12fd59291be2d5e40b901262d3ccdec3&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng successfully assists SALOMON in protecting its classic shoe models; the mountain-shaped zigzag pattern is found to constitute product get-up with certain influence, with damages of RMB 3.39 million awarded</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247518378&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=f0b47c3a08a6f854868b142d4c7291d2&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng represents Richemont in prevailing in rights protection litigation; the get-up of Cartier’s Tank series watches is granted protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, with damages of RMB 5 million awarded</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247514185&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=63af1e1ce47513b040b8e6aa1aec65dc&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Functional considerations in shape design cannot per se exclude protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law! The shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp growing chair constitute product get-up with certain influence</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247512622&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=46337e2a40c42afd7e709b2be1f79532&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng assists a world-leading audio brand in successfully combating counterfeiting, bringing infringing online networks to a halt</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247511985&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=11130b58f378fbf0cef8c214878d9250&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng, acting for SALOMON in its first case concerning the get-up of sports shoes, prevails in both instances; the popular “mountain-shaped zigzag” design is recognized as product get-up with certain influence</a>
</li>
<li>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247511935&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=d60ad7a000dbd8e1be20c51e19475e79&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng assists Casio in securing a landmark victory: the product design remains protected even after the expiration of the design patent</a>
</li>
</ul>

Lusheng's case honored as Model Cases of International Cooperation by the Beijing Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance (CAASA); Managing Partner Landy attended award ceremony

<h2>This article was co-authored by Lusheng and its strategic partner Rouse</h2>
&nbsp;
Compared with the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark and the crime of selling commodities bearing a counterfeit registered trademark, there has been relatively little discussion in criminal law theory and practice regarding the crime of illegally manufacturing representations of a registered trademark, and insufficient attention has been paid to the social harmfulness of this offence. This article, in light of the author’s recent representation of a trademark right holder in a case involving a paper-plastic packaging company and Zhu XX and others for illegally manufacturing representations of a registered trademark, analyzes and summarizes the difficult issues in the case, including the subjective intent of the relevant offenders, the classes of goods for which the counterfeited trademark is registered, and the right holder’s rights protection strategies.
&nbsp;
<h2>Basic Facts of the Case</h2>
The right holder is a prestigious, internationally renowned food enterprise whose products are sold worldwide. While the right holder’s products have been selling well and its brand awareness has been increasing, it has also been severely troubled by counterfeit products. Of particular concern is that, in some overseas regions, certain lawbreakers have taken advantage of the right holder’s almost household-name brand reputation to purchase from China, without authorization, packaging bags bearing the right holder’s well-known trademarks and trade dress, ship them overseas, and use them to package food containing prohibited ingredients for sale, thereby causing harm to consumers’ physical and mental health, triggering strong public opinion, and seriously damaging the right holder’s corporate image.
The defendant entity, a certain paper-plastic packaging Co., Ltd., is an enterprise specialized in the production and sale of various food packaging bags. Defendant Zhu A is the legal representative of the company and is responsible for overall management. Zhu B serves as the company’s general manager and is specifically responsible for the company’s production activities. The salespersons of the defendant entity are responsible for product sales and, after receiving orders, submit them to the company for review and production. The public security authorities seized 20,350 packaging bags bearing the illegal marks involved in the case at the premises of the defendant entity. According to the appraisal by the trademark owner, all of these packaging bags were products bearing counterfeit marks.
From March 2021 to March 2023, the sales staff of the defendant entity established contact with three U.S. customers. Without the other party providing trademark registration certificates or powers of attorney, the defendant entity accepted their orders for processing and producing packaging bags bearing the brands involved in the case. Without reviewing the relevant authorization documents, defendants Zhu A and Zhu B arranged for the defendant entity to process and produce more than 400,000 packaging bags bearing the trademarks involved in the case (valued at RMB 53,708), and sold them to the U.S. customers via logistics.
In November 2024, the Longcheng District People’s Court of Chaoyang City imposed a fine on the defendant entity for the crime of illegally manufacturing representations of a registered trademark, and lawfully imposed criminal penalties on defendants Zhu A and Zhu B, among others.
&nbsp;
<h2>Key Points of the Case</h2>
<h3>I. Sharing of the Agent’s Experience in Trademark Rights Protection</h3>
In North America, the trademark right holder in this case mostly adopts civil litigation as a means of rights protection in such cases. The drawbacks are lengthy procedures, high costs, and low deterrent effect. In this case, the agent’s adoption of criminal enforcement measures within China on behalf of the right holder constitutes a bold and groundbreaking attempt:
1. Overcoming the “difficulty in criminal investigation and evidence collection”. For this type of infringement model, after fully understanding the client’s pain points and demands, the agent, through meticulous early-stage planning and investigation and evidence collection, reported the case simultaneously to the public security authorities and the Administration for Market Regulation, and fully coordinated to achieve flexibility in case filing. In addition, the agent was supported by an expert team with extensive case-handling experience, which actively assisted the relevant law enforcement authorities in effectively collecting evidence, thereby laying an evidentiary foundation for the subsequent smooth filing of the case and prosecution.
2. Overcoming the “difficulty in criminal case filing”. After the quantity of seized goods preliminarily met the criminal case-filing threshold, the agent, representing the trademark right holder, actively followed up and promoted the case throughout the process, ultimately successfully facilitating the public security authorities’ filing of a criminal case.
3. Overcoming the “difficulty in examination for prosecution”. At the stage of transfer to the procuratorate for examination for prosecution, the agent assisted the client in overcoming multiple concerns of the prosecutor in charge of the case, including issues such as non-prosecution on the grounds of corporate compliance, insufficient evidence of subjective intent, and determination of the trademarks involved. The agent issued professional opinions to demonstrate and address these concerns.
4. Multi-channel rights protection. In designing a global rights protection strategy for this type of infringement model, based on the agent’s professional advice, in addition to adopting criminal measures against the Chinese printing factory, the right holder in this case also simultaneously adopted online rights protection measures on multiple cross-border e-commerce platforms, thereby striking at the supply chain of overseas counterfeiters and improving the cleanliness of the market.
&nbsp;
<h2>II. Overcoming Difficult Issues in the Case and Successfully Securing Conviction and Accountability of the Defendant Entity and Defendants</h2>
<h3>1. The Issue of the Defendants’ Subjective Intent</h3>
Pursuant to Article 215 of the Criminal Law[1], the offender must possess intent subjectively, namely, knowing that he has not obtained the entrustment or permission of the registered trademark owner, yet still illegally manufactures and sells representations of another’s registered trademark.
At the beginning, defendants Zhu A and Zhu B argued that they were unaware of the defendant entity’s and sales personnel’s illegal manufacture and sale of the packaging bags bearing the illegally manufactured registered trademarks involved in the case, and that they were also unaware that such packaging bags were used to package food containing prohibited ingredients. Based on the facts and evidence of the case, the agent analyzed for the procuratorate that such arguments were contrary to common sense: First, the packaging bags involved in the case were produced by the defendant entity in 2019. The defendants claimed that the plate cylinders for the packaging bags involved in the case and the forged power of attorney were provided by an American they met at an exhibition in 2019, and that after the packaging bags involved in the case were produced, that customer defaulted on the contract and absconded. Second, in 2021 the defendant entity participated in an exhibition in the United States, where it displayed physical samples of the packaging bags involved in the case, and some foreign customers took several samples and business cards. After the sales staff received orders for the packaging bags involved in the case, they sent pictures to the company for instructions, and the company replied that there was stock on hand. The defendant entity then sold the packaging bags manufactured in 2019 to the new customers in 2021. Third, defendants Zhu A and Zhu B had been engaged in the printing industry and related businesses for many years and were very familiar with the administrative measures governing the printing industry. The defendants went abroad to exhibitions to display the packaging bags involved in the case to solicit customers, directly sold packaging bags printed many years earlier to new customers, and the packaging bags involved in the case were specifically used to package food containing prohibited ingredients. The right holder considered that they clearly knew that the packaging bags involved in the case that they produced and sold had not been licensed by the right holder, which met the criteria for finding direct intent in the crime.
The professional opinion issued by the author on behalf of the right holder was adopted by the procuratorate. Defendants Zhu A and Zhu B also had no choice but to admit guilt and accept punishment, and at the trial stage argued that the defendant entity had a weak awareness of the law, that their review of customer orders was not strict enough, and that they had failed to personally participate in daily sales and packaging orders, resulting in deficiencies in supervision. Ultimately, the court, on this basis, found that Zhu A and Zhu B had committed the crime of illegally manufacturing representations of a registered trademark.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. On the Issue of “the Same Kind of Goods” in the Crime of Illegally Manufacturing Representations of a Registered Trademark</h3>
At the stages of case filing and examination for prosecution, the right holder was requested by the relevant judicial authorities to provide registration certificates for trademarks in Class 16 covering packaging bags and other related goods to prove the trademark rights infringed by the offenders. However, the agent argued on solid grounds that the trademark rights infringed upon should be the right holder’s trademarks in Class 30 covering goods such as candies, sugar, and confectionery. The reasons are that the right holder is a food enterprise rather than an enterprise engaged in the printing industry, and that the packaging bags involved in the case are specifically used for packaging candy-type goods.
First, trademark representations themselves cannot circulate as goods in the market; they need to be affixed to goods in order to realize their value. According to the Reply on the Meaning of Trademark Representations issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in 1987[2], the Reply on the Issue of the Meaning of Trademark Representations issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in 1988[3], and Article 15 of the Measures for the Administration of Trademark Printing promulgated in 2004[4], trademark representations, as tangible carriers of trademarks, enter the circulation field together with the goods as supporting items. In light of the specific circumstances of this case, the packaging bags illegally printed and sold by the defendant entity and the defendants are identical to the packaging bags for candy-type goods produced and sold by the trademark right holder. These packaging bags will be used downstream to package candy-type related goods for sale.
Second, in China’s criminal law system, criminal offences of trademark infringement mainly include three crimes: the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark (Article 213 of the Criminal Law), the crime of selling commodities bearing a counterfeit registered trademark (Article 214 of the Criminal Law), and the crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured representations of a registered trademark (Article 215 of the Criminal Law), all of which fall under Chapter III of the Criminal Law, “Crimes of Undermining the Socialist Market Economic Order”. There is an upstream-downstream relationship in the criminal chain of manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods among these three trademark-related offences, and from the perspective of legislative history, the crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured representations of a registered trademark was separated from the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark. The crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured representations of a registered trademark involves only the forging of trademark representations without applying them to specific goods; the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark refers to manufacturing counterfeit products and using forged representations; and the crime of selling commodities bearing a counterfeit registered trademark covers the sale of such counterfeit goods. For example, in the Criminal Ruling (2019) Yun Xing Zhong No. 120, the Higher People’s Court of Yunnan Province held that the trademark involved in the case was approved for use in Class 31, with specific approved goods including fresh fruits, fresh citrus, etc. The defendants illegally manufactured the face paper of packaging boxes bearing the trademark involved in the case for use on packaging boxes for “Chu Orange” goods, which fell within the scope of protection of the registered trademark, and their conduct violated Article 57(4) of the Trademark Law and constituted infringement. For the constitution of the crime of illegally manufacturing representations of a registered trademark as stipulated in Article 215 of the Criminal Law, in addition to the requirement of “the same kind of goods”, the requirement of “the same trademark” must also be satisfied. This is the “two identities” standard that should be followed in determining various crimes of infringement of a registered trademark. Based on the logical relationship among Articles 213, 214, and 215 of the Criminal Law and in view of the legislative objectives, the criteria for determining “the same kind of goods” and “the same trademark” in these three provisions should be consistent and compatible.
The above-mentioned opinion issued by the agent on this issue was adopted by the procuratorate, and ultimately the indictment was based on the trademark registration certificates for candy-type goods provided by the right holder and was upheld by the court.
&nbsp;
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
With the development of the Internet and international trade, crimes involving registered trademarks not only present various complex and difficult legal issues but also involve cross-border transactions. In the face of such offences, it is more difficult for right holders to protect their rights, and it is necessary to advance rights protection through multiple channels and by multiple means. In this case, through the author’s professional legal services, the difficult legal issues relating to offences involving trademark representations were overcome, and the ultimate goal of protecting the right holder’s rights was achieved, providing useful reference and guidance for the handling of international intellectual property crime cases.
&nbsp;
<h2>Rouse Authors:</h2>
Sophie Li：Senior Consultant
Aria Tian：China Head of Research Unit
&nbsp;
<h4>Notes</h4>
<h4>[1] Whoever forges or, without authorization, manufactures representations of another’s registered trademark, or sells such forged or unauthorized manufactured representations of a registered trademark, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if the circumstances are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined.</h4>
<h4>[2] Trademark representations generally refer to material entities bearing trademarks, such as nameplates on bicycles, labels on wine bottles, and cigarette packets.</h4>

Case study: a paper-plastic packaging company and certain individuals in a case involving the crime of illegally manufacturing registered trademark labels

Ling Jin

Shanghai, August 2025. After months of investigation and legal action, Lusheng Law Firm (‘Lusheng’) has successfully represented one of the world’s leading breeders of table grapes, cherries, and blueberries, BLOOM FRESH International Limited (‘BLOOM FRESH’), to secure the destruction of a batch of unlawfully propagated vines of the IFG Ten variety known to consumers as SWEET GLOBE™(甜蜜地球™). In this case, vines and fruit of IFG Ten were being sold by the infringing party under the name of "Linglong Xingguang" (玲珑星光), which was deemed a serious breach of BLOOM FRESH's plant variety rights (PVR).&nbsp;
As a result of the litigation action, the illegal propagator of IFG Ten, was compelled to destroy the illegal vines at their own expense and pay substantial compensation to BLOOM FRESH.&nbsp;
This decision should be a wake-up call for any parties involved in the unauthorized cultivation and sale of BLOOM FRESH varieties. The company remains committed to taking legal action against any infringing use of its plant varieties and trade marks. In addition to IFG Ten, BLOOM FRESH holds numerous popular varieties and trade marks, such as IFG Six (registered trademarks: /SWEET SAPPHIRE™)/甜蜜蓝宝石™and IFG Twenty-two (registered trademarks: CANDY DREAMS™/糖果梦想™).&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2>Sunny Su of Lusheng Law Firm, the case’s leading lawyer:&nbsp;</h2>
"The success of this litigation case was down to the precise identification of infringement leads, efficient action, and the staunch assistance and cooperation of BLOOM FRESH. The Lusheng team satisfied the chain of evidence requirements through meticulous investigation and coordinated precise DNA testing comparisons. The result was an effective implementation of the overall strategy ultimately assisting BLOOM FRESH to combat illegal propagation and sales and halting the infringement. Infringing operations of this nature are often complex such as coordinated planting by multiple parties, organization management by specialized entities, and covert sales channels, which significantly increase the difficulty of evidence collection. However, drawing on our extensive experience in the protection of new plant varieties and our close collaboration with BLOOM FRESH, we were able to secure the evidence and substantiate the legal arguments. This case is an example of China's strong plant variety protection system, demonstrating the legal system's commitment to a “'full-chain protection' of intellectual property rights."&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2>Josep Estiarte, CEO of BLOOM FRESH:&nbsp;</h2>
"Today we send a very clear message to the industry: We have zero tolerance for illegal propagation and any infringement of our intellectual property rights. We are fully committed to enforcement and will dedicate all necessary resources to protect our rights—no infringement will be overlooked. This case also serves as a warning that violators will face severe economic and legal consequences."
Josep Estiarte emphasized that, "The reason this matter is so important to us is simple: authorized growers in China have placed their trust in us to support their long-term, sustainable growth. We have a responsibility to ensure that infringers are held accountable through legal means—protecting the interests of our licensed partners and safeguarding consumers’ legitimate rights.”&nbsp;

Lusheng secures major victory for BLOOM FRESH in First-of-its-type PVR litigation in China

Alice Yu

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Brief</h2>
Stokke AS (hereinafter “Stokke”) is a Norwegian manufacturer of children’s furniture and accessories renowned worldwide for developing outstanding solutions for children. Over the years, Stokke has produced numerous globally acclaimed products. Among them, since its launch in 1972, the Tripp Trapp high chair has been favored by consumers for its unique shape and design, pioneering the concept of growing children’s furniture. Sitongjia Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sitongjia”) was established on 28 December 2012 and is Stokke’s wholly-owned subsidiary in China.
In 2020, Stokke and Sitongjia discovered that Suzhou *** Home Furnishing Co., Ltd. was manufacturing and, through its 1688, Tmall, Taobao, JD.com and Pinduoduo online stores, selling in large quantities products identical in shape and trade dress to the Tripp Trapp high chair.
On 30 December 2022, upon trial of first instance, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court found that the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair for which the plaintiffs Stokke and Sitongjia sought protection constituted product trade dress with certain market influence, and that the defendants’ acts constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 1.5 million. The case was subsequently appealed to the Jiangsu High People’s Court. Upon second-instance trial, on 31 March 2025, the Jiangsu High People’s Court rendered a final judgment dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Key Points of the Judgment</h2>
<h3>1. The simple and unique shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue does not fall within the category of functional shapes excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; granting protection to such shape and trade dress does not restrict competition.</h3>
The scope of protection sought by Stokke and Sitongjia for the Tripp Trapp high chair’s trade dress in terms of shape covers the overall configuration consisting of an inclined L-shape formed by the inclined uprights and the bottom crossbar, and a step-like configuration formed by the seat board and footrest. The defendants argued that the shape design at issue falls under the first two types of functional shapes excluded from protection as provided in the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court, and therefore cannot be protected as product trade dress.
In this regard, the court of second instance held that, according to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court, the first two types of shapes excluded from trade dress protection are “shapes solely determined by the nature of the product itself” and “shapes of a product that are solely necessary to achieve a technical effect.” The former refers to shapes that are necessary or commonly adopted to achieve the inherent purpose and use of the product, and the latter refers to shapes that must be used to enable the product to possess specific functions or to make the inherent functions of the product easier to achieve. If the shape adopted for part or all of a product, although designed to achieve certain functions, is not a shape that is necessary or commonly adopted, then, due to the existence of multiple variations, it possesses distinctiveness and cannot be deemed a functional shape excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law merely because its design also takes functionality into account. In the present case, the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair claimed by Stokke and Sitongjia as trade dress is the overall configuration presented by designing the uprights and bottom crossbar into an inclined L-shape and the seat board and footrest into a step-like configuration. To achieve the safety, stability and adjustability functions of a growing children’s chair, the L-shaped support frame and the two step-like boards must also work in conjunction with other components such as grooves, crossbars and iron tubes. However, as regards the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue, there is insufficient evidence to prove that this is a shape that is necessary for or commonly adopted by growing chairs. On the contrary, the evidence submitted by Stokke and Sitongjia shows that there are various styles of growing children’s chairs on the market with different shapes and configurations; most growing chairs on the market adopt closed structures such as triangular or quadrilateral shapes, whereas the chair at issue adopts an open L-shaped configuration, which is clearly different. Therefore, the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue does not fall within the functional shapes excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and protecting such shape and trade dress does not restrict competition.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. The termination of patent rights does not necessarily mean that the relevant shape and configuration automatically enters the public domain; as long as the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are met, it may still be protected under that law.</h3>
The Tripp Trapp high chair was granted utility patents abroad, which did not limit the specific shape of the chair. However, the defendants argued on this basis that, since the Tripp Trapp high chair had been protected under patent law and the patent term had expired, it could no longer be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
In this regard, the court of second instance held that, in the field of intellectual property, it is not uncommon for the same subject matter to fall within the scope of protection of different intellectual property rights, and the termination of one right does not mean that other rights simultaneously lose effect, especially given that the Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides supplementary protection for certain civil interests under specific conditions. As for the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue, although it had been granted invention or utility model patents in multiple countries, invention or utility model patents protect technical solutions rather than the overall or partial shape and configuration of a product, and their purpose is to encourage inventions and creations and promote scientific progress. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law protects commercial signs with certain market influence, with the purpose of encouraging fair competition and preventing confusing acts of imitation. Therefore, the termination of patent rights does not necessarily mean that the relevant shape and configuration automatically enters the public domain; as long as the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are met, it may still be protected under that law. The evidence submitted by the defendants consists of documents generated in the course of overseas patent applications for the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue. Since the nature and scope of the rights applied for abroad are different from the shape and configuration trade dress of the Tripp Trapp high chair claimed by Stokke and Sitongjia in this case, such evidence should not serve as the basis for determining functional shape in this case.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. Whether a three-dimensional trademark is approved for registration does not affect the determination in an individual case as to whether a product’s trade dress has certain market influence.</h3>
The China National Intellectual Property Administration once rejected the application for the Tripp Trapp three-dimensional trademark on the ground that it lacked distinctiveness. The defendants argued that, since the overall appearance of the Tripp Trapp high chair could not obtain protection as a three-dimensional trademark, it likewise could not be protected as product trade dress.
In this regard, the court of second instance held that, after long-term promotion and advertising, the shape and configuration trade dress of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue has established a stable correspondence with the Stokke brand and Stokke as a company, and the relevant public can identify the source solely by the shape of the high chair. Regardless of whether the plaintiffs’ promotion of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue focused on the product’s functions, this does not negate the fact that the shape and configuration trade dress of the high chair has actually acquired the function of distinguishing the source of goods. Although the application for a three-dimensional trademark for the shape of the high chair at issue was rejected, the reason for rejection was lack of distinctiveness rather than a finding that it constituted a functional shape, and there is no evidence proving that the evidence of reputation submitted in the aforementioned administrative proceedings is identical to that in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be inferred from the fact that the shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair did not obtain registration as a three-dimensional trademark that its shape and configuration trade dress likewise lacks distinctiveness.
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/pl1lkyt1/img_4463919055286135_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=585&amp;height=200" alt="" width="585" height="200">
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Lawyers’ Commentary</h2>
For the shape and structure of a product itself to obtain protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, more stringent conditions must be satisfied, and successful cases of this type are relatively rare. The shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair, due to its concurrent functional considerations, is more prone to controversy as to whether it falls within the “functional shape” excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In fact, the shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair is not determined by its functionality. In this case, the plaintiffs, through extensive evidence, demonstrated that products of the same type can achieve the same functions through various different designs, and that the functionality of Tripp Trapp is not realized solely by the shape for which protection is sought in this case. In addition, although the shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair appears simple, it embodies substantial intellectual input by the designer, is clearly distinguishable from similar growing chairs on the market, and has a high degree of distinctiveness. Through long-term use and promotion, it has further come to embody the plaintiffs’ brand goodwill and has acquired the function of identifying the source of goods.
This case also explores in depth the issue of multiple protection of intellectual property rights. The courts of both instances confirmed that the same subject matter may be the object of protection of different intellectual property rights. In addition to design patents, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides more flexible and dynamic protection for the shape and configuration of products. Although the Tripp Trapp high chair had been granted invention patents, given that the legislative purposes, objects of protection and conditions for protection under the Patent Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are different, once the patent rights have terminated, as long as the appearance and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair meets the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it may still be protected as a distinctive commercial sign under that law. The fact that a product’s shape and configuration has failed to obtain registration as a three-dimensional trademark does not mean that it cannot be protected as product trade dress under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In practice, the Trademark Office imposes very high requirements on the examination of distinctiveness and evidence of reputation for three-dimensional trademarks. This is based on the strong level of protection afforded to trademarks and the possibility of unlimited renewal of the protection term, and reflects a cautious attitude toward granting rights in three-dimensional trademarks. By contrast, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law follows the principles of case-by-case determination and dynamic protection; its scope of protection is easier to define in individual cases and is more flexible in terms of the protection of legal interests.
In summary, this case marks the first time that the external design of the Tripp Trapp high chair has obtained judicial protection in China, which is of milestone significance for Stokke’s core product that has achieved great commercial success. At the same time, this case conducts an in-depth discussion on the constitutive elements and conditions for protection of structural trade dress, and thus has high reference value for similar rights protection cases.

Functional considerations in shape design do not exclude anti‑unfair competition protection

Lusheng Editor

Large-scale manufacture and export of counterfeit products, including amplifiers, headphones and microphones were halted&nbsp;Three leading audio equipment brands including Shure, have scored a decisive victory against a network in China that were engaged in large-scale manufacture and export of counterfeit products, including amplifiers, headphones and microphones.The case started in May 2022 when <a href="/">Lusheng</a> Law Firm, working with its strategic partner Rouse, uncovered a network of nine companies in China, including trading, logistics and manufacturing companies across Guangdong Province, exporting counterfeit audio equipment to South East Asia. The network operated over eighty separate online stores on Shopee and Lazada supplying to customers in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines. Although several audio brands were targeted by the counterfeiters, only three brand owners, Shure and two others engaged Lusheng and Rouse to launch a coordinated action.Lusheng reported the case to the Guangdong Province Public Security Bureau (PSB) who coordinated local PSB units to conduct simultaneous raids against all the targets. As well as seizing counterfeit products on site at several locations, the PSB investigated the trading company at the heart of the network and, through careful digital forensics, uncovered records showing more than US$1.7 million in sales of counterfeit products of various international brands.The case concluded in December 2024 with seven suspects handed custodial sentences ranging from two to four and a half years and fines totalling US$1.1million.&nbsp; To address their civil liability, Lusheng concluded settlement agreements with the suspects for&nbsp;considerable compensation.Chris Bailey, now Head of UK &amp; EU Enforcement for Rouse, who led the case in his previous role in China, said：&nbsp;“This is a very gratifying outcome, both for the criminal sanctions and the civil recovery, which returns much more to our clients than the case cost them. It demonstrates the professionalism of China’s PSB in analysing digital evidence from online sales. And shows the value of attacking networks rather than individual parts of the chain: what appeared to be eighty retailers in five countries were actually different outlets of the same organisation. Instead of scattered online takedowns at the local level, the brand owners have uprooted the source”.

Leading audio brands score major victory against counterfeiting network in China

<ul>
<li>The Supreme People's Court upholds landmark ruling regarding the protection of ENZAFruit’s Scilate apple variety, brand name “Envy”, under China’s revised Seed Law</li>
<li>Lusheng helped ENZAFruit secure RMB 3.3 million (£319,000) worth of damages – a significant compensation sum awarded as part of a vegetative Plant Variety Right (PVR) infringement civil case, and the requirement for the infringer to destroy all illegally propagated plant materials.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/__;!!FMox2LFwyA!uIMoC0eAY6XmoxU88JHKDJ6xVijVTOvQxAcldq-dTlyhVAj0nqBdR48wN039b69N_fmuvgmetr8hz6TbUBFC$">Lusheng</a> has helped its client&nbsp;<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.enzafruit.be/en__;!!FMox2LFwyA!uIMoC0eAY6XmoxU88JHKDJ6xVijVTOvQxAcldq-dTlyhVAj0nqBdR48wN039b69N_fmuvgmetr8hz8sfGnM_$">ENZAFruit New Zealand International Limited</a>, a subsidiary of T&amp;G Global, a leading New Zealand-based fresh produce business, secure the high amount of compensation for a vegetative PVR infringement civil case, following the final ruling by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. The Supreme People’s Court has ordered the infringer to destroy all illegally propagated plant materials.
In this second instance ruling, Lusheng used its years of PVR filing experience to expertly secure punitive damages totalling RMB 3.3 million (£319,000) to ENZAFruit.
This is a remarkable compensation amount awarded for a PVR infringement case, with the court doubling the illegal revenues generated from the infringing activities to calculate the punitive damages based on the defendant’s demonstration of malice and serious infringement.
According to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ inspections of the enforcement of the Seed Law in 2023, the average total for damages is about RMB 425,000 (£54,000).
The decision upholds an earlier ruling regarding the protection of ENZAFruit’s ‘Scilate’ apple plant variety rights by the Lanzhou Intermediate Court of Gansu Province in November 2023. The court found that the defendant had infringed ENZAFruit’s IP rights by unlawfully cultivating and selling ‘Scilate’ plant variety material and apples harvested from the illegal materials. The Supreme Court ordered the infringer to cease all violations and to destroy illegally propagated plant materials to protect the &nbsp;plaintiff’srights and interests.
Lusheng’s IP litigation team proved this by investigating, collecting and conducting a DNA analysis of the necessary propagation materials during the sapling planting and fruit harvesting seasons from several orchard sites in China.
The judgement by the Supreme People’s Court is a few of its kind, setting a precedent for foreign and domestic PVR holders &nbsp;by extending protection over any harvested fruit to propagation material of any variety, following the recent strengthening of China’s <a href="http://en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn/2021-11/24/c_910015.htm">Seed Law</a>.
Sunny Su, Lusheng principal, Digital and Commercial Team, commented: “This successful case underscores the increasing importance of IP protection for local and foreign brand owners in China's agrifood industry, particularly given the rising demand for quality produce. Recognising the significant time, financial investment, and human resources required in the plant breeding process, this ruling highlights the enforceability of IP rights for asexually propagated materials like fruits and horticultural plants. We believe this outcome, supported by the comprehensive protection offered under the newly implemented Seed Law, will encourage local and international PVR holders to confidently protect their assets and invest in China.”
Liping Xu, Lusheng senior litigator emphasized: “This case represents one of the rare instances in the new plant varieties where punitive damages have been applied in high-compensation cases. The Supreme People's Court elaborated on how harvested materials impact variety rights holders and concluded that calculating damages based on these infringing harvested materials better protects the competitive interests of these rights holders. Furthermore, the destruction of illegally propagated plant materials is the most effective means of safeguarding the interests of PVR holders.”
Morgan Rogers at ENZAFruit added: “This landmark ruling underscores China's commitment to protecting plant variety rights, giving T&amp;G Global greater confidence in our Chinese investments. With stronger IP protection, we can expand our licensing of premium varieties like ENVY® branded apples, benefiting Chinese consumers, partners, growers and our business. This decision paves the way for T&amp;G Global to accelerate our growth plans and further contribute to China's thriving horticulture sector."
With the defendant’s appeal dismissed, ENZAFruit will now also be entitled to file a new lawsuit and seek further compensation for the infringement of rights since the initial 2023 judgement.

Second-instance victory! Lusheng helps parent company of Enzafruit secure landmark win, as Supreme People's Court upholds 3.3 million yuan damages award

Siyan He

Amersports Trading (Shanghai) v. Hainan Suyinyin E-Commerce, Guangdong Suyinyin Brand Management, Foshan Suyinyin Investment Consulting, Wu and Zhang – Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute.
<h2>Case Brief</h2>
*The following content is reproduced from Zhi Chan Bao
Originating from France, SALOMON has been renowned for its professional outdoor sports equipment since 1947. As a leader in the industry, SALOMON has consistently been committed to perfectly integrating outstanding performance with fashionable design, providing footwear, apparel and equipment that combine functionality and style for outdoor enthusiasts and urban trendsetters. Its sports casual footwear series, by virtue of the perfect combination of functionality and fashionable design, has won the favor of a vast number of consumers and rapidly become a fashion bestseller.
The defendants manufactured footwear that copied nine models from three series of SALOMON sports shoes, and, by taking advantage of the unique design features and extensive reputation of SALOMON footwear, promoted and sold such products on platforms including Taobao and Xiaohongshu. After completing evidence preservation, SALOMON filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement and unfair competition with the People’s Court of Chancheng District, Foshan City in November 2023. After first-instance and second-instance trials, in January 2025, the Foshan Intermediate People’s Court ordered the defendants to immediately cease the infringement and to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of RMB 500,000.
&nbsp;
<h2>Reasoning of the Judgment</h2>
The trade dress for which the plaintiff sought protection involved nine models of sports shoes from SALOMON’s XT-6, XT-quest and XA PRO series. The defendants argued that the trade dress for which the plaintiff sought protection was not clearly defined; that such trade dress had long been disclosed and had entered the public domain, and therefore could be freely used by anyone without constituting infringement; and that even if the trademarks involved in the case enjoyed a certain degree of influence, this did not mean that the trade dress involved also enjoyed a certain degree of reputation, nor did it mean that the trade dress involved had acquired the function of distinguishing different sources of goods.
The appellate judgment, in light of the legislative purpose of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, conducted a detailed analysis of the plaintiff’s claims and the defendants’ defenses:
&nbsp;
<h3>First, determination of the content of the trade dress for which the plaintiff seeks protection and assessment of whether it constitutes distinctive trade dress</h3>
 The appellate court held that the plaintiff claimed that the overall trade dress was of unique design, and that all elements, when combined, were unique and distinctive. The plaintiff’s claim as to the trade dress of the goods for which protection was sought was clear. As to the design patent documents submitted by the defendants in support of their contention that the trade dress involved had entered the public domain, the court held that the trade dress involved was not entirely identical to the design features of the aforesaid design patents, as reflected in, among others, the angles of the broken lines and the manner in which the lines intersected. Although the trade dress involved shared certain similar design features with the prior design patents, it was not a reproduction of those design features. By contrast, the accused infringing trade dress was almost identical to the trade dress involved. Taking into account that the design space for footwear products is inherently limited, and that there were differences between the trade dress involved and the prior design features, the trade dress involved could be protected as a distinctive design.
&nbsp;
<h3>Second, whether the trade dress of the goods involved has “a certain influence”</h3>
&nbsp;
Generally, where goods bearing word-and-graphic trade dress are found to be goods “with a certain influence”, such trade dress, except in circumstances where it lacks distinctiveness, usually serves to distinguish the source of goods and thus constitutes distinctive trade dress for such goods. The court held that the trade dress for which the plaintiff sought protection was word-and-graphic trade dress. Although the plaintiff asserted nine trade dresses, from the specific description it appeared that the plaintiff was asserting nine features of the trade dress. Among these nine features, the most distinctive feature lay in the mountain-shaped broken-line pattern on the vamp, and the court held that the “mountain-shaped broken-line” trade dress could be recognized as distinctive trade dress of the goods. In combination with the evidence of reputation submitted by the plaintiff, it was established that the sports shoes involved had, through extensive and continuous sales and promotion, become known to the relevant public and had acquired “a certain influence”.
&nbsp;
<h3>Third, whether the accused infringing products infringed the trade dress of the products involved</h3>
&nbsp;
When the trade dress of the accused infringing products manufactured by the defendants is compared in isolation with the trade dress of SALOMON XT-6, XT-quest and XA PRO sports shoes, the two are highly similar in terms of overall trade dress and visual effect, especially in the highly similar design at the mountain-shaped broken-line portion. In addition, some of the accused infringing products bear the designation “XA PRO”. Consumers, exercising ordinary attention, would find it difficult to accurately distinguish between the two, and confusion and mistaken purchases are likely to occur. In the absence of evidence from the defendants proving that the mountain-shaped structure and the “XA PRO” marking had become generic designs and generic indications, the first-instance judgment finding that the trade dress of the accused infringing products infringed the trade dress of the goods involved was correct, and the appellate court upheld it.
The appellate judgment further held that, with respect to the design of trade dress, different business operators may learn from and draw on each other’s trade dress and, on that basis, engage in innovative design to form trade dress for their respective goods that is clearly distinguishable. However, in the course of drawing on others’ trade dress, they should make full use of generic elements in other trade dress and freely design trade dress that is clearly distinguishable from the distinctive trade dress previously used by others. Deliberately imitating the design and trade dress of others’ well-known goods can never lead to long-term development in market competition. The above reasoning in the appellate judgment fully reflects the legislative purpose of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to encourage and protect fair competition, to prohibit unfair competition, and to protect the legitimate rights and interests of business operators. This case is of guiding significance for the handling of similar cases.
<img style="float: right;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/k3rkhuq0/img_8114542836147065476_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=645&amp;height=386" alt="" width="645" height="386">
&nbsp;
Read the Judgment in This Case
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4MDYxMjczNA==&amp;mid=2650132772&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=c04572b902a4cc6495b3736349eb1077&amp;chksm=86d68cdc6764b87951f0c6d0ce2103fdf4b1bfd5267c4c1b2d28c6f3fc21e745ec219cd927cb&amp;mpshare=1&amp;scene=21&amp;srcid=0303bmhq25UIlkjIROrEP37Y&amp;sharer_shareinfo=cb6003ac0f114c4ca12eccdd94cf8e95&amp;sharer_shareinfo_first=cb6003ac0f114c4ca12eccdd94cf8e95#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" data-linktype="2">Comprehensive Case | Foshan Intermediate Court: SALOMON’s First Trade Dress Case Concerning Sports Shoes Prevails in Both Instances; the “Mountain-Shaped Broken-Line” Design of the Bestseller Series Is Recognized as Trade Dress with a Certain Influence</a>
&nbsp;
Service Team
&nbsp;
Hou Juanjuan
Head of Guangzhou Litigation Team
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Hou Juanjuan is an outstanding lawyer in the field of intellectual property protection and enforcement, with more than ten years of practical experience. Her areas of expertise cover infringement disputes involving trademarks, copyrights, patents and trade secrets, as well as unfair competition disputes. The multinational well-known enterprises and leading domestic enterprises she serves mainly come from industries such as sports, entertainment, technology, fashion and luxury goods, toys, daily chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Ms. Hou is particularly adept at intellectual property criminal litigation, criminal enforcement actions and administrative enforcement actions. She has handled many groundbreaking cases that have guiding significance for similar cases in the field of intellectual property nationwide and at the local level. Several of these cases have been selected as typical cases by courts, procuratorates and industry organizations at various levels, including the “Top Ten Typical Cases of National Procuratorial Organs Protecting Intellectual Property Rights of the Year” selected by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the “Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of the Year” selected by the Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC) of foreign enterprises, and she has been repeatedly listed in the “Managing IP: IP Rising Stars” rankings.
&nbsp;
Email: ahou@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
He Siyuan
Attorney
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
He Siyuan focuses on intellectual property legal matters and is skilled in intellectual property civil litigation, intellectual property protection at trade fairs, and the WIPO domain name dispute resolution mechanism. She mainly represents cases involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, domain name disputes and copyright disputes. She has participated in numerous complex and innovative cases, which have received recognition including “Outstanding IP Litigation Cases in Lingnan” and “Top Ten Foreign-Related IP Cases in Guangdong”, among others.
&nbsp;
Email: fhe2@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng secures victories in both trials of the first case involving SALOMON sportswear trade dress

Tianyu Hang

<div class="newsSummaryContent">Protecting Iconic Watch After Expiry of Design Patent</div><div id="content-detail"><ul><li>Court grants trade dress protection for Casio's GA-110 watch design after the design patent expired, setting an important precedent for the industry</li><li>Landmark ruling rejects defendants' attempt to dismiss sales data inflated by "brushing," holding them accountable for deceptive practices with significant damages sum</li></ul>&nbsp;<a href="/">Lusheng </a>has helped its client, globally renowned watch brand,&nbsp;<a href="https://world.casio.com/">Casio Computer Co., Ltd</a>&nbsp;win a landmark unfair competition lawsuit in China.The High People’s Court of Guangdong Province ruled that the use of Casio's distinctive GA-110 watch design by Guangzhou Teyuan Watch Industry Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tasgo Watch Co., Ltd. was an act of unfair competition that could confuse consumers.The court's decision affirmed that the design features of the GA-110 watch are distinctive, non-functional, and have acquired significant consumer recognition, associating them strongly with the Casio brand. The defendants' use of a nearly identical design was therefore deemed unfair competition, diluting the distinctiveness of Casio's trade dress and harming its business interests.As a result, the court ordered the defendants to pay Casio 3 million RMB ($414,000) in damages, calculated based on a combination of the impact of their infringing actions, malicious intent, and sales record.The court rejected the defendants' argument to exclude sales data inflated by ‘brushing’ – the practice of creating fake orders to manipulate online rankings – from the damage’s calculation, highlighting that businesses will be held accountable for such deceptive practices.The victory &nbsp;represents the first case in which relief under China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law has been granted to Casio for a product design with expired design rights. It sets an important precedent for the industry, highlighting the tools businesses have at their disposal to protect their brands even after design patents expire.Sales evidence have been extracted from several online platforms, including 1688 and Tmall where the defendants sold infringing watches. With the favourable judgment, CASIO may also be able to extend protection on online platforms, as online platforms are increasingly willing to support unfair competition claims to clamp down on this practice on their sites.&nbsp;Landy Jiang,&nbsp;Managing&nbsp;Partner and Co-Head of Dispute Resolution at Lusheng, commented on the case: "This victory underscores the strength of trade dress protection in China, even after design patents expire. It demonstrates the courts' commitment to safeguarding intellectual property rights, combatting unfair competition, and protecting genuine, iconic brands, particularly in the online marketplace. It also highlights China’s determination to target&nbsp;counterfeiters and copycats, sending a clear message to businesses operating in this space.“This decision will serve as a valuable precedent for brand owners adding an additional layer of defence for those seeking to protect their unique product designs and will help shoppers from copycats&nbsp;&nbsp;moving forward."The successful outcome for Casio reinforces Lusheng's expertise in complex IP litigation and the firms’ dedication to protecting its clients' brands in the competitive Chinese market.</div>

Lusheng helps Casio achieve landmark victory: product design remains protected even after design patent expires

Jerry Zhao

Lusheng Law Firm has helped its client ENZAFruit New Zealand International Limited, a New Zealand-based operator of exotic fruits and vegetables, win a landmark Plant Variety Rights (PVR) infringement civil case in the Lanzhou Intermediate Court of Gansu Province.&nbsp;This landmark Court of First Instance victory in Chinese IP litigation awarded ENZAFruit its full claim for significant damages. The Plant Variety in this case is one of New Zealand’s leading apple varieties, known as&nbsp;Scilate&nbsp;and branded as Envy™ which is also legitimately grown in China with ENZAFruit’s partner, JOY WING MAU.The success of this complex case was achieved with Lusheng’s specialist IP lawyers overseeing all the investigation, evidence collection and analysis during the saplings planting and fruit harvesting seasons, with the court hearing and litigation process taking 10 months from filing in September 2022.Lusheng’s IP litigation team ensured all evidence was expertly collected from several orchard sites in China to capture the necessary propagation materials and conduct DNA analysis to be presented as evidence in court. This was achieved against a combination of difficult economic and logistical challenges arising from the global Covid pandemic.This successful PVR infringement case is a significant court award since China’s revised&nbsp;<a href="http://en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn/2021-11/24/c_910015.htm">Seed Law</a>&nbsp;was implemented in March 2022. Previously, the Seed Law did not protect any harvested fruit but the new regulations now extend to both the fruit and the propagation material of any protected variety. <a href="https://lushenglawyers.com.cn/who-we-are/jerry-zhao/">Jerry Zhao</a>, Lusheng Senior Associate, Disputes Resolution, one of the leading attorneys managing the case, commented: “With rising demand for quality fruit and vegetables,&nbsp;especially within China and across the Asia-Pacific region, protecting the IP of agriculture businesses responsible for importing or exporting valuable patented food produce is increasingly important.“The plant breeding process can be extremely complex, requiring a significant amount of time, financial investment and human resource to create any new plant, fruit or vegetable variety. The newly implemented Seed Law allows us to protect client’s PVR rights more comprehensively, and importantly, application of punitive compensation, in addition to statutory damages, also showed Chinese court’s determination to discourage PVR infringement with high level PVR protection. ” <a href="https://lushenglawyers.com.cn/who-we-are/sunny-su/">Sunny Su</a>, Lusheng principal, Digital and Commercial Team, another lead attorney on the case, added: “The fact that we were able to gather and analyse all intelligence against the seasonal constraints of planting and harvest times, to win the highest ever compensation for our client is a testament to our specialist litigation team. The Chinese Court made the right decision as it will be well-received by the wider agriculture sector and any food business who is importing or exporting goods to China.”Morgan Rogers at ENZAFruit, addressed:&nbsp;“Our Scilate apples and premium Envy® brand are renowned globally, with consumers and customers in over 60 countries seeking them out. Significant research, development, marketing and sales investment has gone into creating the unique variety and building our premium Envy® brand, which is why we strongly protect and defend our IP to ensure its value flows through to consumers, customers, licensed growers and communities.&nbsp;We thank Lusheng Law Firm for their support in protecting our IP in China and ensuring our Chinese growing partners investment is protected, and for creating a precedent which&nbsp;discourages PVR infringement and provides enhanced PVR protection.”This agriculture industry IP victory sets a precedent for future vegetative propagation plant PVR cases. The legal victory of Lusheng and ENZAfruit has helped boost the confidence of the agrifood industry in China to tackle any challenging PVR infringement cases related to produce.

Lusheng wins largest chinese vegetative PVR infringement compensation

Miriam Yang

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head></head><body>This is a joint effort of Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner, Rouse, in which Lusheng handled the case with Rouse coordinating related works. We announced a recent significant win in a trade mark infringement case for <a href="https://www.juratek.com/">Juratek</a>, a leading European original equipment manufacturer (OEM).  The case was brought against it by Laizhou Baoyi Machinery Co. (Baoyi), a Chinese parts manufacturer.We represented Juratek against Baoyi for trade mark ‘squatting’, in which companies deliberately register other brands’ trade marks. Generally, the aim of trade mark squatting is to sell the trade mark back to the original owners for an exorbitant amount; or to sell counterfeit products under the trade mark registered in China.The Juratek win supports the Chinese courts’ recent efforts to crack down on trade mark squatting.Winning this case is a huge milestone for OEMs in China, which typically face an uphill battle in fights against trade mark squatters. OEM businesses are commonly found to be infringing the squatter’s rights when a squatter has registered similar trade marks to theirs. Chinese courts have difficulty supporting an OEM party's claim that it does not infringe Chinese registered trade mark rights by virtue of its trade mark rights abroad. This means that victims of squatting in China could find their products which had been manufactured for export only, could be seized  by Customs and prevented from being exported.  The caseIn 2017, Baoyi registered trade marks for Juratek’s company name and logos, despite Juratek using the trade marks in China and overseas since 2000. Baoyi then used the trade marks against Juratek’s Chinese automotive parts supplier, and Customs detained the shipments for export. Throughout the court case, we utilised the ‘Principle of Good Faith’, rather than legal provisions of trade mark ownership, to show that Baoyi was aware it was trade mark squatting, alongside showing significant evidence. This is a principle in which all parties are legally obliged to act honestly.In the first instance decision, the court ruled that as the owner of the trademark, Baoyi won. However, during the appeal, the High Court placed a greater emphasis on the ‘Principle of Good Faith’ and Juratek won the case.  Matt Robinson, Managing Director at Juratek, says:“We’re delighted with the end result.  We faced some dark moments in the early days when our shipments were being detained, and it was extremely frustrating. We have done business in China for 20 years and have been very happy with things, but we were starting to doubt the system. However, we were advised to hold tight and that we would get there in the end – which fortunately we did – and my faith is restored.”Chris Vale, Global Head of Litigation at Rouse, said: "We're delighted for Matt and Juratek.  Juratek has a long history of manufacture in China and this case was very disruptive to the business.  He trusted in us, and our lawyers did an amazing job overturning the First Instance decision and getting a win".<a href="/who-we-are/landy-jiang/">Landy Jiang</a>, Head of Beijing Dispute Resolution at Lusheng, said:“IP protection in China has improved dramatically over the years - but that doesn’t mean that all issues have been resolved.  It’s a gradual process, and complications and risks still exist, particularly for foreign businesses seeking to protect their brands in China. A company that loses its trade mark rights in China could risk being pushed out of the market altogether.China’s IP landscape is changing rapidly, and at the same time, the level of complexity involved in trademark squatting and OEM issues is also escalating. We are glad to see courts and administrative authorities like CNIPA are giving greater attention to such matters, and the second instance court in this case is willing and able to make significant breakthrough to support and protect foreign brands based on the ‘Principle of Good Faith’.”<a href="/who-we-are/miriam-yang/">Miriam Yang</a>, Senior Associate at Lusheng, said:“Trade mark disputes like this one are common among OEMs, which have complex supply chains of components to be used in the production of goods by other manufacturers, but what is unusual is for the applicant against the squatting company to win cases such as these in China.This is a significant win – the case can be used as a blueprint precedent for the use of the ‘Principle of Good Faith’ to be used in a trade mark squatting case. The decision supports the protections of the rights of foreign investors looking to expand or launch their brands in the Chinese market, and should provide confidence for OEMs and other businesses with sophisticated, complex supply chains in protecting their rights in China.” For more information on the Juratek case, please see our case study article <a href="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/awards-press/bet-the-house-trade-mark-battles-in-china/" title="‘Bet the house’ trade mark battles in China">‘Bet the house’ trade mark battles in China.</a>In separate pieces, our legal expert, Miriam Yang, shares her<a href="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/awards-press/a-reflection-on-judicial-decisions-of-oem-related-trade-mark-infringement-cases-in-china/" title="A Reflection on Judicial Decisions of OEM-related Trade Mark Infringement Cases in China"> reflections on the judicial decisions of the OEM-related trade mark infringement cases in China</a>, and her <a href="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/awards-press/comment-on-the-case-for-trademark-dispute-of-juratek-oem/" title="Comment on the Case for Trademark Dispute of "Juratek" OEM">comments on the case.</a></body></html>

Landmark win for OEMs in China

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head></head><body><div class="newsSummaryContent">Actions that OEM brand owners must win to protect their market position</div><div id="content-detail">IP protection in China has improved dramatically over the years - but that doesn’t mean that all issues have been resolved.  It’s a gradual process, and complications and risks still exist, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their brands in China.  Sometimes a brand owner will find itself involved in a ‘must win’ dispute: if it loses, it may not only lose its trade mark rights in China – it may be pushed out of the China market altogether. This article looks at how to manage these ‘must win’ disputes, or ‘bet the house’ battles.  It focuses first on some of the particular complications that exist in China and the risks they pose for brand owners, then on China’s rapidly changing IP landscape, which brand owners must take into account.  Then, using a recently decided case by way of illustration, it will show the level of complexity involved in these cases, and the factors that need to be taken into account.  In conclusion, it sets out a number of key points for brand owners who may currently be engaged in, or considering, a ‘bet the house’ trade mark battle in China.  Complications in China – Risks for Brand Owners IP rights are a powerful tool to support business opportunity and development in China.  It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult to secure those rights.  The rejection rate for new applications is high, largely because of the extremely crowded register.  Whereas in the past there were various ways that trade mark owners could overcome these difficulties, such as obtaining letters of consent from the party on the register, these may not work well nowadays.  Even if a foreign brand owner does manage to secure registration, it is becoming more difficult to maintain the registration in the face of non-use challenges.  The authorities now require a much higher standard of evidence.  Also, the Trade Mark Office has recently started rejecting defensive filings on the basis of a lack of intention to use.  Meanwhile, large numbers of bad-faith applications continue to be filed, interrupting the business operation of the genuine brand owner, and making it difficult for it to secure registration of its own marks.  Under such situation, IP protection in China is becoming more sophisticated and often involves considerable expenditure.If a brand owner merely operating under OEM circumstances in China (i.e. products manufactured within China will be exported to markets outside China), while its mark has been squatted by someone operating in the same industry, it will be necessary to develop an appropriate strategy and take whatever action is considered appropriate: this is a situation in which a brand owner is likely to find itself in a ‘bet the house’ fight  - a fight it needs to win if it wants to remain in the China market.  In all such situations, there are likely to be three core issues involved:  (1) whether the OEM defence is available; (2) how to deal with bad faith registrations; and (3) what is the appropriate strategy for the fight. Rapidly Evolving and Developing Local Protection TrendsThe evolving and developing local trends are considered below in the context of the OEM defence and bad faith registrations.OEM DefenceOEM disputes have been a hot topic in China for years, generating much debate and controversy.  Initially, the decisions of the Courts were relatively straightforward, but there has been a definite trend in recent years towards a more sophisticated analysis.  This can be seen from the landmark cases referred to below.  The courts now consider cases on a case-by-case basis, making a careful analysis of the issues.   A lot of work, therefore, needs to be done to ensure that all arguments are supported by adequate evidence.In 2015, in the famous Pretul case  ((2014)Min Ti Zi No.38), the Supreme People’s Court held that as the goods were being exported from China and not put onto the market in China, the OEM was not ‘using’ the trade mark, and there was, therefore, no infringement. That position was expanded by the Court in the Dong Feng case in 2017 ((2016) SPC Min Zai No.339), when it was decided that the OEM was ‘using’ the trade mark, but it was not use to distinguish the source of the goods in China, as the goods were being shipped out of China, and so there was no infringement – provided the OEM had exercised an appropriate duty of care.  In 2019, in the HondaKit case ((2019) SPC Min Zai No.138), the situation was further updated.  In this case the Court considered all the facts of the case and found that because ‘Honda’ was very well known, and the Defendant had enlarged the word ‘Honda’ and reduced the word ‘kit’, it had obviously acted in bad faith.  Following the Honda case, the courts have generally continued to take a more open and sophisticated approach to the OEM defence, considering and analysing all the facts of the case, although the attitude and approach of individual courts does vary.  The Trade Marks Office has, however, been consistent in considering that affixing a mark to a product constitutes trade mark use sufficient to defeat a non-use cancellation action, but not to establish a reputation in the mark, as consumers will not be aware of the mark.Although there are differences in approach and emphasis among the courts, usually all will take account of the following five factors:  whether the defendant has registered or been licensed with the mark outside China; whether the OEM products could return to China; whether, and to what extent, the Plaintiff’s trade mark has a reputation;  whether the Defendant has fulfilled its duty of care, or engaged in any bad faith activity; and whether there is a possibility/likelihood of confusion. An examination of over forty published OEM cases decided since the Hondakit case, reveals that most, not surprisingly, took place in the coastal or border regions, where there are imports and exports and a Customs presence.  In 34% of these cases the OEM defence was upheld. Bad Faith RegistrationsBad faith registrations have been a major problem in China.  The Chinese government has been very aware of the problem and has been working to improve the situation and to make improvements generally in the business environment.   There have, in fact, been significant improvements in the areas of both trade mark prosecution and enforcement in recent years.  On the trade mark prosecution side, the average success rate of disputed cases at the CNIPA from 2019 – 2021 increased as follows: oppositions 30% to 48.27%; invalidation 60% - 73.58%; non-use cancellation appeals 82.27%.  In addition, over two million trade marks were taken down from trading platforms; 482,000 bad faith trade mark applications rejected, opposed or invalidated, and over 400 bad faith trade mark assignments rejected.  On the enforcement side, the courts have been increasingly deciding against bad faith parties; punitive and statutory damages have increased; bad faith filing is becoming a key factor.  Brand owners who spend on prosecution may be able to be rewarded when bad faith activities of the other sides are found.It is important that brand owners keep up with local trends, developments, and court attitudes and that they update their IP strategy accordingly.  It is also important that they are aware if the changing practices of bad faith operators; in recent years, for example, bad faith parties have been becoming more aggressive, no longer limiting their activity to filing, but also taking aggressive action to interrupt the business of the genuine brand owner. The trends that have been developing in the courts in recent years fall into four stages:  Stage 1:  as early as 2014, in the case of Ge Li Si, the Supreme People’s Court held that bad faith squatters should not be protected; as a result the genuine brand owner would not be infringing.  Stage 2.  Then in 2017 and 2018, in two cases:  Coppertone and Paula’s Choice, the Court went further and awarded compensation for damage caused by the malicious actions of the bad faith squatter against the business operations of the genuine brand owner.  After the Coppertone case, brand owners began, for the first time, to seek compensation for economic loss in these situations.  Stage 3.  In 2020, in the Brita case, the bad faith squatter filed malicious applications as well as oppositions to Brita’s applications.  It also used similar marks on its own products to complete with Brita.  This was the first case in China where the Court clearly held that, under general principles of Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the misuse of opposition proceedings should be regarded as a type of unfair competition.  Stage 4.  In the Emerson case, the bad faith squatter had, over the years, repeatedly applied to register various Emerson trade marks, forcing Emerson into continuous battles involving the commitment of huge resources to defend its rights and interrupting its business operation.  The difference between this and the Coppertone case, is that here the Court found that the malicious filing activity alone, without any use of the trade mark, constituted unfair competition. The Emerson case is controversial and has generated a lot of discussion.  It should, however, encourage brand owners to consider all possibilities and, where appropriate, seek to push the boundaries of the law.  In a case with similar facts it would be worth considering action, particularly before a Court that is willing to be creative.  In this context, an important factor will always be endeavouring to find the appropriate Court if forum shopping is feasible, a Court willing to explore new ways of tackling the bad faith situation. Fighting and winning the ‘Bet the House’ battleFollowing is a note of a recent case we have conducted.   The background and steps taken provide a useful illustration of both the issues and the complexities that arise in these cases, and of the specific actions that can be considered.The owner of the brand, JURATEK, is a company established in the UK in 1982.  It created the JURATEK brand, and registeredjuratek.com domain name in 1999.  In 2000 it changed its company name to JURATEK Limited and began using the mark JURATEK.  In 2006, it registered the JURATEK mark in Europe.  From 2000 to 2013, it used the JURATEK trade mark and entrusted OEM factories in China to manufacture the product, with evidence from at least 2008.  In 2013, it amended the JURATEK mark by adding a border or frame (the updated mark ).In 2011, the adverse company was established in China and in 2014 it set up a company in the UK.  In 2018, the Chinese company registered the updated mark in China.   So the updated  trade mark was registered not by the genuine trade mark owner, but by a trade mark squatter.  The squatter proceeded to take a very aggressive approach.  It applied for a Customs detention order to prevent the OEM goods being exported; it commenced trade mark infringement proceedings against the OEM factories; it attempted to extend its trade mark registration to other classes; and, finally, it began promoting itself as the international JURATEK brand.In response, the brand owner filed a defence to the trade mark infringement action; commenced an unfair competition action based on malicious trade mark registration and legal action; commenced a trade mark invalidation action; and, being practical, opened settlement negotiations in an attempt to resolve all issues as soon as possible.The brand owner had to establish that the OEM goods were not likely to return to China; that it had been using the mark prior to the adverse party; and that the adverse party had acted in bad faith.  Initially, it was not successful, either before the Court or the Trade Mark Office, but on appeal, the Court took a broader and more sophisticated approach.  In relation to the OEM defence, it looked at the nature of the product and concluded, for several reasons, that it was not a product that would be purchased on the internet, and there was no evidence that it was otherwise likely to return to China.  It had some concerns, however, because the mark being used in China was not the same as the mark registered in Europe, and the prior use was arguable to establish sufficient reputation in China market since all the products were exported out of China. There was, however, a clear finding of bad faith.  JURATEK was a created word and not the sort of thing that the adverse party would have arrived at by coincidence; further, the adverse party was operating in the same field as JURATEK brand owner and in the same geographical area as the OEM factories.  It was also imitating JURATEK’s products packaging, and attempting to register trade marks of other overseas brand owners with similar approach.  Finally, we were successfully established bad faith claim against the adverse party, and obtained favourable non-infringement judgment for the genuine JURATEK brand owner. Further, with the help of the Court we were able to convince the adverse party to enter into early settlement negotiations.  As a result, it agreed to transfer the trade mark registration and to cease all infringing activity. Key takeaway points 1. Do not be afraid of escalation – be prepared to invest; make use of PR and control PR risk where appropriate; take account of any relevant geopolitical considerations.2. Be prepared for possible retaliation from bad faith party – consider evidence preservation; prior use; reputation; global perspective.3. Work with local firm to come up with overall strategy – take action to remove bad faith registration (opposition, invalidation and non-use cancellation); build up your own portfolio in parallel.4. Consider more aggressive action to deter bad faith party – e.g. civil litigation. This article was co-written with Hatty Cui of Rouse. For more information on the Juratek case, please see our press release piece <a href="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/awards-press/landmark-win-for-oems-in-china/" title="Landmark win for OEMs in China">Landmark win for OEMs in China.</a>In separate pieces, our legal expert, Miriam Yang, shares her <a href="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/awards-press/a-reflection-on-judicial-decisions-of-oem-related-trade-mark-infringement-cases-in-china/" title="A Reflection on Judicial Decisions of OEM-related Trade Mark Infringement Cases in China">reflections on the judicial decisions of the OEM-related trade mark infringement cases in China</a>, and her <a href="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/awards-press/comment-on-the-case-for-trademark-dispute-of-juratek-oem/" title="Comment on the Case for Trademark Dispute of "Juratek" OEM">comments on the case.</a></div></body></html>

‘Bet the house’ trade mark battles in China

We are delighted to share all the Lusheng awarded cases in 2022. Model Cases on IP Protection and Innovation-driven Development Released by the Supreme People's Procuratorate, Top 10 Judicial Protection Cases on Intellectual Property Rights by Shanghai Courts in 2021.- Represented Lego against an education technology company and an individual for counterfeiting registered trademark Top 10 Typical Cases of Cracking Down on IP Infringement Crimes by Ministry of Public Security in 2021- Represented Chanel against 9 individuals for IP infringement and counterfeit cosmetics The Second Prize of 2021 Excellent Case Review by National Court System, Grand Prize of 2021 Outstanding Judgment Document of Jiangsu Court System, Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by the Suzhou Court from 2017 to 2021- Represented New Balance against New Boom and an individual for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Top 10 Cases Foreign-related IP Protection Cases by Jiangsu Market Supervision and Administration- Represented VACHERON CONSTANTIN and IWC against a Nanjing company over infringement of exclusive right of service trademark. No. 1 of 100 Typical Cases of Shanghai Court in 2021- Represented BABYZEN against Lvyuan for infringement of invention patent Typical Cases of Enhancing Intellectual Property Rights Protection by Shanghai Courts 2021- Represented BABYZEN against Lvyuan for infringement of invention patent- Represented BRITA GMBH against trademark infringement and unfair competition. Top 10 Typical Cases of Judicial Service Quarantee of Intellectual Property by Shanghai Pudong Court - Represented New Balance against New Barlun for unfair competition and “N” goods decoration Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection by People’s Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality in 2021- Represented Cisco on criminal litigation against trade mark infringement 2021 Top 10 Typical IP Protection Cases in Guangzhou- Represented against a jewelry store in a copyright infringement case. 2021 Guangdong Province Top Ten Foreign-related IP Cases- Represented HANSGROHE SE against a company for bad faith trade mark infringement and unfair competition acts- Represented Vans, Inc. in a case of trademark infringement and unfair competition Top 10 Judicial Protection Cases on Intellectual Property Rights by Jiangsu Courts in 2021- Represented Burberry Limited against BENEBERRY’s producer and distributor in China for trademark infringement Top 10 Judicial Protection Cases on Intellectual Property Rights by Changsha Courts in 2021- Represented CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AG against unfair competition acts Top 10 Judicial Protection Cases on Intellectual Property Rights in Yantai 2021- Represented INVENTIO AG and Schindler against trademark infringement and unfair competition. Top 10 Cases by Rizhao Court from 2017 to 2021- Represented HPE (Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company) against an individual for trademark infringement Top 10 Judicial Protection Cases on Intellectual Property Rights by Jinhua Courts 2021, Top 10 Typical IP Cases by Yiwu court in 2021- Represented VAN CLEEF & ARPELS SA against a Jewelry company for unfair competition Top 10 Typical IP Judicial Protection in Zhenjiang 2021- Represented Hilti Aktiengesellschaft against Xilide for trademark infringement exclusive right and unfair competition. Top 10 Judicial Protection Cases on Intellectual Property Rights by Qingyuan Courts - Represented Daniel Wellington AB for trademark infringement lawsuit against the gang led by two individuals Typical IP Protection Cases by Shenzhen Longgang People's Procuratorate from 2017 to 2021- Represented CCA and B, LLC against an individual for copyright infringement. Top 10 Typical Cases of IP Protection in Xinwu District of Wuxi from 2012 to 2022- Represented DOVE against eight individuals for counterfeiting registered trademarks.

Lusheng awarded cases in 2022

Meryl Wang

Well known life sciences company, Sanofi and it's Chinese brand name ‘赛诺菲’ are highly regarded in the Chinese market. Unfortunately, these brands have been the targets of misuse across a wide range of industries including fraudulent examples such as ‘Sanofi Environmental Protection Technology' and ‘Sanofi Biotechnology'.Sanofi has been successfully undertaking numerous actions against such uses including a recent landmark win. Sanofi began trade mark invalidation proceedings for the "Sanofi 赛诺菲" trade mark which was approved and registered on Class 11 Air purification devices and machines.The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that after long-term, widely publicised usage the "Sanofi" and "赛诺菲" trade marks are constituted as well-known trade marks. The owner of the disputed trade mark improperly took advantage of Sanofi's widely known brand, and the disputed trade mark was successfully declared invalid. This case was a success for Sanofi’s future brand protection and will be a great reference when dealing with similar infringement cases in the future.

Success for Sanofi

Robin Su

Shuyue Wang

u-blox, a publically listed global provider of positioning and wireless communication technologies and services, has been handed a favourable decision in its copyright infringement suit against Chinese rival Techtotop Microelectronic Technology Co. Ltd (TT). u-blox was represented by Lusheng.This decision demonstrates that courts in China are more willing to reverse the burden of proof, and draw a negative inference against a defendant.  In the case the evidence pointed strongly to infringement, but the defendant refused to provide any evidence to the contrary. The reversal of the burden of proof,  particularly important for software disputes, where comparison of source code can be very burdensome or even impossible to conduct due to the inability to access the other party’s source code. <a href="https://suryomurcito.com/people/sharon-qiao" title="Sharon Qiao">Sharon Qiao,</a> Senior Partner, Head of Litigation Group at Lusheng Law Firm, commented:"The Hangzhou court handled the highly technical issues very competently. The large damages award reflects a trend in Chinese courts towards higher damages in cases like this, where the commercial impact on the IP owner is significant.”

Winning copyright suit for u-blox

August Zhang

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head></head><body>On 13 March 2019, Beijing Chaoyang District Court determined that the use of a car design by Jiangling Motors (“JM”) constituted a case of unfair competition against the plaintiff, Jaguar Land Rover (“JLR”). The court held that the design of JLR’s Evoque had established a reputation and JM’s Land Wind X7 was similar, which may confuse the relevant public. The defendant was ordered to stop manufacturing, marketing and selling infringing cars, and must pay damages of RMB 1.5 million (approx. USD 220,588). JLR simultaneously filed a copyright lawsuit for the same design but the court dismissed the claim.This is a landmark case as it is the first court win of an unfair competition claim with relation to a car design in China. Up until now, there were only precedent cases for successful protection of product design under unfair competition law in other industries, such as luxury goods, wine bottles and industrial machine. This case is particularly significant for car design protection where the design patent is no longer valid or at risk of invalidation. It may also be helpful to pave a way for other car makers for design protection from broader concept of unfair competition claim. The FactsJLR created the new Evoque design in February 2009 and displayed it at the Guangzhou International Car Exhibition in December 2010. JLR launched the sale of the new Evoque on the Chinese market in November 2011, and since then gained reputation for Evoque among Chinese consumers.JLR applied for a design patent on Evoque in 2011, but it was invalidated by the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) on request of JM, as the design was publicly displayed prior to the application in 2010.JM filed an application for a design patent for its car model Land Wind X7 in 2013. However, it was invalidated by the PRB and the invalidation was upheld by the Beijing High Court in 2018. The Court decided that there were no significant visual dissimilarities between Land Wind X7 and Evoque.<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/sw1b5n1f/img_4329138658684677816_jlr-jm.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 300px; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; display: block;">JLR simultaneously filed two lawsuits against JM with the Beijing Chaoyang District Court: one for unfair competition, and the other for copyright infringement. Under Chinese law, a product shape and design may be protected by design patent, copyright, or as a unique design under unfair competition law. As the design patent for Evoque was invalidated, JLR had to rely on the copyright and the unfair competition claim. The DecisionPRC unfair competition law protects a product shape and design under the following conditions: a) the plaintiff’s product design has gained a certain reputation (or “certain influence” as originally worded in the law); b) the defendant’s product design is similar to the plaintiff’s; c) the use of the defendant’s product design may confuse or mislead the relevant public.The court ruled that all these requirements were satisfied in the case. It held that JLR had made long standing use and promotion for Evoque, and that the relevant public was able to associate the unique design with JLR cars. The court also held that the shape and design of Land Wind X7 and Evoque are similar in five specific features. Their use may mislead and confuse the relevant public.However, the court rejected the copyright infringement claim, as the design of Evoque hadn’t reached the minimum level of originality required for copyrightable work, and consumers would regard it as an industrial product rather than a work of applied art.In the copyright case, JM argued that JLR had abused its right as it had already claimed unfair competition for the same design, and moreover the design patent had been invalidated. The court rejected this argument by affirming the doctrine that different IP rights for the same design can overlap and that IP owners are entitled to file lawsuits for different claims simultaneously. Our CommentsThe case will certainly give international car makers more confidence to claim unfair competition against Chinese car copycats. In numerous earlier cases, international car makers were frustrated by the failure of Chinese courts to protect car designs.The case suggests that courts in future may adopt a broader concept of unfair competition from the perspective of product reputation and likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers for car designs.Unfair competition action has been playing an increasing role as backup or blanket protection where other options may not be applicable. It is of critical importance for IP owners to maintain sufficient evidence such as prior use, promotion and advertisement costs, designers’ drawings and relevant awards. They should also note that uncertainty in unfair competition actions will remain, and the outcome will depend upon the sophistication of court, and thus the forum shopping is particularly important.Having said that, design patent applications continue to be an important component of design protection in China, though special caution should be given to prior disclosure of the design by public display or product launch.Concerns in IP litigation in general remain on separation of civil proceeding and invalidation proceedings which almost certainly results in delay of cases. Recently the SPC Vice President Mr. Luo Dongchuan moved to NPC that the two proceedings be combined, which, once adopted, will reduce the delay considerably in the future.The JLR vs JM case may also impact Chinese domestic car makers. While some industries – such as e-commerce, social media, telecommunication and high-speed railway – successfully transitioned from “made in China” to “invented in China”, the domestic car makers have continued imitating car designs of international companies with low legal risk of being sued successfully. This will hardly continue as China’s court system is getting increasingly sophisticated. (For more information, please contact August Zhang at azhang@lushenglawyers.com)</body></html>

Lookalike car design deemed as unfair competition - the first court win in unfair competition action for car design in China

On 10 September, the INTA Thematic Forum, co-organized with the participation of Lusheng Law Firm, was successfully held in Shanghai. Ms. Wang Shan, Director of the Shanghai Office and Co-head of the Dispute Resolution Practice, was invited to deliver a thematic presentation, and Ms. Yang Yi, Partner at Rouse and strategic cooperation partner of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to moderate the first half of the event.
The forum brought together over one hundred guests from government authorities, judicial bodies, enterprises and professional service institutions. In-depth discussions were conducted around core topics such as protection of trade dress and brand get-up and cross-departmental collaboration within enterprises. Ms. Heather Steinmeyer, Chief Policy Officer of INTA, attended the event and delivered a welcome address.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/crobxxen/640.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=755&amp;height=503" alt="" width="755" height="503">
First half of the event
During the thematic presentations in the first half, representatives from administrative enforcement, procuratorial and judicial authorities, together with practitioners, provided professional insights from multiple perspectives.
Han Xiao, Head of the Intellectual Property Division of the Huangpu District Administration for Market Regulation (Intellectual Property Office) of Shanghai, drew on administrative enforcement practice to introduce Shanghai’s efforts to strengthen the protection of trademarks and commercial signs. Lu Chuan, Deputy Director of the Intellectual Property Procuratorial Department of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate, interpreted Shanghai’s full-chain judicial protection measures for intellectual property based on the procuratorate’s performance of its IP functions, and analyzed the application of law and the boundary between criminal and civil matters in criminal IP cases. Zhang Ying, Judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Shanghai High People’s Court, based on adjudication practice, explained the logical connections among the protection of trademarks, copyright, design patents and anti-unfair competition, and clarified the scope of protection and boundaries of application of various rights.
Shen Meili, Head of Legal Affairs of Shanghai Shangmei Cosmetics Co., Ltd., shared practical experience in trade dress protection from the perspective of corporate brand management.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/vjcjngwh/640-1.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=756&amp;height=503" alt="" width="756" height="503">
Wang Shan, Director of Lusheng’s Shanghai Office and Co-head of the Dispute Resolution Practice
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/5eujnnug/640-2.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=757&amp;height=504" alt="" width="757" height="504">
Yang Yi, Partner at Rouse
Wang Shan, Director of Lusheng Law Firm’s Shanghai Office and Co-head of the Dispute Resolution Practice, analyzed the advantages and limitations of different enforcement paths in brand protection. She recommended that enterprises focus on their core brand assets, make early arrangements for trademark, copyright, design patent and anti-unfair competition protection, continuously consolidate the rights foundation and preserve evidence of use, and select coordinated enforcement strategies according to the dispute scenario so as to enhance the precision of brand protection.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/rtajkkyh/640-3.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=756&amp;height=457" alt="" width="756" height="457">
Second half of the event
During the roundtable discussion, Zhu Fengchun, Director of Trademark and Brand Legal Affairs at ByteDance, He Tingjun, Senior Manager of Intellectual Property at Geely Holding, Zhang Lei, Intellectual Property Manager for Greater China at Nestlé (China) Co., Ltd., and Zeng Yingxian, Global Head of Trademarks at NIO Legal Department, engaged in dialogue based on the practical experience of their respective companies. This session was moderated by Yang Ning, Senior Partner at Lung Tin Intellectual Property.
The guests shared their experience in trademark management, IP R&amp;D collaboration, global trademark portfolio planning and cross-departmental cooperation in the context of digital content ecosystems, the automotive industry, multinational consumer goods and the overseas expansion of new energy enterprises.
&nbsp;
<h2>Rouse Moderator</h2>
<h3>Yang&nbsp;Yi, Partner, Rouse</h3>
Yang Yi has been deeply engaged in the field of trademarks and brands, providing leading multinational enterprises with comprehensive strategic advice and professional services. She has 20 years of practical experience in the fields of trademark and brand, copyright and design right acquisition, enforcement, dispute resolution, negotiation, as well as global portfolio planning and protection. Her clients span industries including technology and the internet, entertainment and media, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, luxury goods, hotels, restaurant chains and industrial manufacturing. Relevant cases handled by her have been selected as “Annual Typical Cases in Trademark Review” by the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Owing to her outstanding professional capabilities and reputation in the industry, in recent years Yang Yi has received recognition from numerous international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including World Trademark Review and Who’s Who Legal, and serves as an expert at the Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Response Guidance Center of the China National Intellectual Property Administration. She currently serves as Chair of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee of INTA’s Non-Traditional Marks Committee, and previously served as Chair of the China Subcommittee of the International Trademark Association (INTA) Trademark Office Practices Committee. She has also been recognized as a Special-grade Agent in the Talent Pool of the China Trademark Association and as an Individual Gold Service Provider in Trademark Agency.
Email: ayang@rouse.com

INTA forum “Beyond Trademarks: Diverse Paths for Brand Protection” was held in Shanghai

On 26 June, the “Mainland Enterprises Intellectual Property Going Global Business Matching Event”, organized by the Intellectual Property Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the Guangdong Administration for Market Regulation, co-organized by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council and the Intellectual Property Bureau of Guangzhou Development District, and supported by the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Guangdong, was successfully held in Guangzhou Science City.
Hou Juanjuan, Head of the Guangzhou Litigation Team of Lusheng Law Firm was deeply involved in the enterprise matching sessions, providing on-site enterprises with professional consultation and practical guidance, and Lusheng’s strategic partner, Adelaide Yu, Partner of Rouse International Hong Kong Office, was also invited to attend this event.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/txmdlme2/7141.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=699&amp;height=466" alt="" width="699" height="466">From left: Hou Juanjuan, Adelaide Yu
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/axibhkkp/7142.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=699&amp;height=466" alt="" width="699" height="466">
The event attracted participation from more than 150 industry elites. On site, a networking luncheon, thematic seminars and multiple one-on-one business matching sessions were arranged, with the aim of deepening cooperation between Guangdong and Hong Kong in the field of intellectual property, supporting enterprises from Mainland China and Hong Kong to jointly “go global” to expand overseas markets and enhance international competitiveness.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/gnvjni3w/7143.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=698&amp;height=465" alt="" width="698" height="465">Hou Juanjuan · Enterprise Matching Session
During the enterprise matching sessions, Attorney Hou Juanjuan focused on the core pain points encountered by enterprises in the process of going global and conducted in-depth one-on-one exchanges with representatives of multiple enterprises. In response to intellectual property issues of concern to enterprises in their overseas market expansion, Attorney Hou, drawing on her extensive experience in foreign-related litigation and practice, provided participating enterprises with forward-looking insights and practical strategic recommendations.
&nbsp;
<h2>Rouse Participating Guest</h2>
<h3>Adelaide Yu, Partner, Rouse International (Hong Kong Office)</h3>
Adelaide Yu is an intellectual property agent in Hong Kong, whose practice covers various categories of intellectual property (contentious and non-contentious). She is adept at handling infringement disputes relating to intellectual property in Hong Kong (trade marks, copyright, designs and patents). Her litigation experience includes dealing with cross-border infringement cases involving both Mainland China and Hong Kong. Ms. Yu works closely with the Hong Kong Customs in conducting criminal investigations and anti-infringement operations. In Mainland China, she provides advice on intellectual property enforcement strategies and has extensive experience in handling intellectual property litigation, administrative and criminal raids, as well as customs seizures.
Email: ayu@rouse.com

Alice Hou joins IP outbound matching, enabling global layout

Sophia Hou

On June 24, under the guidance of the Yunfu Municipal Administration for Market Regulation and hosted by the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Intellectual Property Mediation Center, the “2026 Yunfu Municipal Enterprise Trade Secret Management and Protection Business Training and Special Seminar on Trade Secret Protection” was successfully held. Representatives of the Yunfu Municipal Administration for Market Regulation, local enterprises and industry associations, as well as other participating guests attended the event. Hou Heng, Director of the Guangzhou Branch of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to deliver a special training session on “Interpretation of New Regulations on Trade Secrets and Practical Corporate Risk Prevention and Control”, providing in-depth analysis focusing on highlights of the new regulations, corporate risk management and rights protection strategies.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/gkpeszcg/143.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=648&amp;height=486" alt="" width="648" height="486">
&nbsp;
<h2>■&nbsp;Special Training</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/qxtpmawg/144.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=647&amp;height=485" alt="" width="647" height="485">
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/k1zg32dv/145.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=647&amp;height=486" alt="" width="647" height="486">Photo /&nbsp;Hou Heng, Director of Lusheng Guangzhou Branch
&nbsp;
With the Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Order No. 126 of the State Administration for Market Regulation) having officially come into force on June 1 this year, the new regulations further refine the rules on trade secret protection and put forward clearer and more systematic requirements for the identification of corporate trade secrets, administrative enforcement, risk prevention and control, and avenues for rights protection.
As a mediator of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Intellectual Property Mediation Center, Attorney Hou provided a systematic interpretation of key knowledge points such as the criteria for defining trade secrets, the scope of confidential information, the determination of infringing acts, standards for evidence collection, and legal liability. At the same time, from the perspective of practical corporate operations, he shared experience in full-process management of trade secrets. Focusing on key segments including confidentiality agreements and internal confidentiality management, technical confidentiality control, confidentiality review in external cooperation, and regular self-inspection and rectification, he conveyed replicable methods for trade secret protection and management systems, thereby addressing the practical difficulties enterprises face in daily confidentiality management, namely “not knowing how to manage, managing without sufficient detail, and managing without full coverage.”
Scan the code to request course materials
Interpretation of New Regulations on Trade Secrets and Practical Corporate Risk Prevention and Control
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/1ysjfvlg/146.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=257&amp;height=257" alt="" width="257" height="257">
*The materials are only provided to corporate personnel. Thank you for your understanding.

Sophia Hou trained on trade secrets for Yunfu AMR.

Eddie Wang

On 11 June, Lusheng Law Firm, together with its strategic partner Rouse and Arnold &amp; Siedsma, the European intellectual property firm under Rouse Group, successfully held the IP Gathering Seminar “Overseas IP Deployment of Enterprises and Practical Response Strategies between China and Europe” at The St. Regis Shenzhen in Qianhai OCT.
The seminar brought together representatives from multiple enterprises in the Greater Bay Area, focusing on key topics such as European patent portfolio planning, global patent strategies, cross-border litigation responses, trade secret protection, and administrative enforcement for patent rights.
&nbsp;
Courseware Application
You are welcome to scan the QR code to apply for the courseware
*The materials are only sent to corporate personnel. Thank you for your understanding.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/ik0joxf1/blob.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=430&amp;height=430" alt="" width="430" height="430">
&nbsp;
<h2>■&nbsp;Opening and Welcome Remarks&nbsp;</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/eaip50js/杨熠.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=672&amp;height=447" alt="" width="672" height="447">
Yang Yi, Partner, Rouse
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/akeniilb/640-4.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=683&amp;height=455" alt="" width="683" height="455">
Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner, Lusheng Law Firm
&nbsp;
At the beginning of the event, Rouse Partner Yang Yi acted as moderator, extending a warm welcome to the attendees and introducing the agenda, keynote speakers and an overview of Rouse’s business. Subsequently, Lusheng Law Firm Managing Partner Jiang Nandi delivered the opening remarks. She pointed out that China’s technology is shifting from “products going global” to “technology going global”, and that Shenzhen, as a bridgehead of innovation, offers IP practice explorations of significant reference value nationwide. IP practitioners are not only guardians of innovation achievements, but also navigators for the globalisation of China’s science and technology innovation. This event marks the starting point of a series of China–Europe IP practice sharing sessions, and she expressed the expectation of continued exchanges and joint growth with peers.
&nbsp;
<h2>■ Thematic Presentation&nbsp;·&nbsp;Building an Efficient European Patent Portfolio:Earlier Certainty + Better Positioning in Opposition</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/cm4nszav/640-5.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=684&amp;height=455" alt="" width="684" height="455">Gerwald Verdijck, Partner, Arnold &amp; Siedsma
&nbsp;
Arnold &amp; Siedsma Partner Gerwald Verdijck first introduced the core elements of building a patent portfolio in Europe, including an overview of the European patent application process, a brief introduction to opposition proceedings, and a comparison between EPO opposition and the UPC. He then analysed the necessity of improving patent quality to achieve high impact, illustrating with specific examples common issues that lead to a reduction in the scope of protection or impact, and focused on how enterprises can enhance patent quality and commercial value through an “Early Certainty” strategy.
During the presentation, several attendees actively raised questions and engaged in lively interaction around the relevant topics, further deepening their understanding of European patent practice.
&nbsp;
<h2>■&nbsp;Thematic Presentation&nbsp;·&nbsp;Patents Going Global:Overseas Deployment and Implementation Strategies for Chinese Enterprises&nbsp;</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/vumbbvzj/王怀章.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=673&amp;height=448" alt="" width="673" height="448">
Wang Huaizhang, Head of China Patent Practice, Lusheng Law Firm
Wang Huaizhang, Head of China Patent Practice at Lusheng, provided an in-depth presentation on the overall approach and implementation strategies for enterprises’ global patent portfolio planning. Mr. Wang emphasised that enterprises’ overseas patent strategies must serve their commercial strategies, and conducted comparative analyses using case studies of enterprises in the EV, telecommunications, AI chips and new energy battery sectors. Based on the two core concepts of “risk containment” and “opportunity expansion”, he elaborated on common risks such as market access and technology leakage, as well as how patents can be transformed into licensing revenue, negotiation leverage and brand value. He also proposed criteria for screening high-value patents from legal, technical and market perspectives, and analysed the characteristics of patent application systems in major target markets.
&nbsp;
<h2>■&nbsp;Thematic Presentation&nbsp;·&nbsp;Comparison and Strategies Regarding Litigation Systems and Evidence Rules between China and Europe</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/5hljo32i/蒋1.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=687&amp;height=457" alt="" width="687" height="457">
Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner, Lusheng Law Firm
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/j1qn1fpq/线上参会.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=689&amp;height=459" alt="" width="689" height="459">
Online participation: Arnold &amp; Siedsma, Partner, Michiel Rijsdijk
Lusheng Managing Partner, Attorney Jiang Nandi, first conducted a comparative analysis of the differences in patent litigation procedures and evidence rules between China, the UPC and major European countries, with a particular focus on the “long-arm jurisdiction” principle applied by European courts in patent jurisdiction and its conditions of application, supplemented by in-depth interpretation of multiple practical cases.
Subsequently, Arnold &amp; Siedsma Partner Michiel Rijsdijk joined the seminar online and provided an in-depth presentation on the court inspection proceedings and evidence rules in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the Unified Patent Court (UPC), explaining key practical points such as ex parte inspection orders, the probative value of expert evidence and the protection of confidential information in different jurisdictions.
&nbsp;
<h2>■ Thematic Presentation&nbsp;·&nbsp;Civil Patent Litigation in Vietnam</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/rxppwcxu/huy-nguyen.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=696&amp;height=464" alt="" width="696" height="464">
Huy Nguyen, Senior Lawyer, Rouse Vietnam Office
With the continued rise of the Southeast Asian market, Vietnam has become a key overseas destination of interest for Chinese enterprises. Drawing on local practical experience, Huy Nguyen, Senior Lawyer at Rouse’s Vietnam office, provided an in-depth introduction to the mechanisms for resolving patent infringement disputes in Vietnam, covering civil litigation procedures, evidentiary requirements, standards for determining infringement, and the main challenges faced by right holders in the course of enforcement. He also analysed typical cases to illustrate the development trends in local judicial practice, helping attendees gain a deeper understanding of IP risk management and enforcement strategies in Vietnam.
&nbsp;
<h2>■ Thematic Presentation&nbsp;·&nbsp;Trends, Challenges and Response Strategies in Trade Secret Cases</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/3bmfdcek/徐立平.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=686&amp;height=457" alt="" width="686" height="457">
Xu Liping, Head of Patent Litigation, Lusheng Law Firm
Xu Liping, Head of Patent Litigation at Lusheng, conducted an in-depth analysis of the latest characteristics and trends in trade secret cases in recent years, and, drawing on judicial practice, discussed the challenges faced by enterprises in protecting R&amp;D achievements, managing employees, protecting data assets and preserving evidence. He pointed out that the core of building an enterprise trade secret regime lies in employee management, and that a comprehensive protection system must be established through institutional development, process management and risk warning mechanisms, thereby reducing the risk of leakage at the source.
&nbsp;
<h2>■ Thematic Presentation&nbsp;·&nbsp;Effective Use of Administrative Channels:Efficient Patent Enforcement in China</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/up4jiokx/侯-恒.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=703&amp;height=467" alt="" width="703" height="467">
Hou &nbsp; Heng, Director of Guangzhou Office, Lusheng Law Firm
In light of recent developments in administrative enforcement practice, Hou Heng, Director of Lusheng’s Guangzhou office, introduced the advantages and legal basis of administrative enforcement in patent infringement disputes, as well as the applicable scenarios for patent administrative complaints, infringement investigations and administrative handling procedures. Through typical patent infringement cases handled by Lusheng in Zhejiang, Tianjin, Shanghai and other regions, he demonstrated the practical effectiveness of administrative enforcement in promptly stopping infringement, facilitating settlement and securing compensation.
<h2>On-site Highlights · Outlook</h2>
During the coffee break, speakers and corporate representatives engaged in lively exchanges, sharing professional insights and conducting in-depth industry discussions in a relaxed and amicable atmosphere. The event venue was equipped with professional simultaneous interpretation equipment, supporting real-time translation between Chinese and English.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/dxsjsujk/活动插图.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=680&amp;height=453" alt="" width="680" height="453">
This IP Gathering event focused on the most pressing intellectual property issues encountered by enterprises in the course of going global, and, by combining the latest developments and practical experience from different jurisdictions, provided enterprises in the Greater Bay Area with references that are both strategically oriented and practically valuable.
Going forward, Lusheng will continue to organise more exchanges and sharing sessions around hot topics in intellectual property, helping enterprises enhance their global IP management capabilities and risk response capabilities.
&nbsp;
<h2>Rouse Moderators and Speakers</h2>
Yang &nbsp;Yi
Partner
Rouse
Email: ayang@rouse.com
&nbsp;
Gerwald Verdijck (He Wa’erde · Weierdike)
Patent Attorney, Partner
Head of Coordination for China Business
Arnold &amp; Siedsma (under Rouse Group)
Email: gverdijck@arnold-siedsma.nl
&nbsp;
Michiel Rijsdijk
Partner
Head of Litigation Practice
Arnold &amp; Siedsma (under Rouse Group)
Email: mrijsdijk@arnold-siedsma.com
&nbsp;
Huy Nguyen
Senior Lawyer
Rouse
Email: hnguyen1@rouse.com

IP Gathering Review: Corporate IP globalization and China–EU practice strategies

On 17 April, the “Training on Strategies for Early Grant Certainty in European Patent Applications” hosted by the Hangzhou Intellectual Property Protection Center (National Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Response Guidance Hangzhou Working Platform) was successfully held. The training was attended by Mr. Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner of Lusheng Law Firm, patent attorney Li Hai, and Mr. Gerwald Verdijck, partner of Arnold &amp; Siedsma, a European intellectual property firm under Lusheng’s strategic partner, the Rouse Group, who jointly shared their experience in European patent applications.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/k3kcccya/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=568&amp;height=369" alt="" width="568" height="369">
Mr. Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner of Lusheng
At the beginning of the event, Mr. Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner of Lusheng, delivered an opening address, extended a welcome to the participants, and briefly introduced the firm’s overall business layout and its strengths in the field of patents.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/gpsljeug/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=554&amp;height=331" alt="" width="554" height="331">
From left: Arnold &amp; Siedsma partner Gerwald Verdijck, Lusheng patent attorney Li Hai
During the training, focusing on the needs of Hangzhou-based enterprises in carrying out intellectual property work in Europe, the two lecturers, Gerwald and Li Hai, drew on their extensive practical experience in patent prosecution to highlight the concept, advantages and application strategies of early grant certainty strategies for European patents.
“Some enterprises, when applying for European patents, encounter translation issues that result in the terminology used in the claims being inconsistent with the applicant’s original intent, and there are no specific embodiments in the description to support them. This leads to unclear and incomplete wording in the claims, which seriously affects the efficiency of patent prosecution. If enterprises adopt early grant certainty strategies in advance, they can identify problems early, reduce the number of responses to office actions during the application process, and improve grant efficiency.” By reference to practical cases, Gerwald vividly explained the advantages for enterprises of adopting early grant certainty strategies before planning their European patent portfolios.
In addition, based on multiple specific cases, Gerwald also pointed out the tangible effects of this strategy in terms of cost reduction, broader protection and accelerated examination.
During the interactive session, participants actively engaged in brainstorming. Many participants, taking into account their companies’ actual circumstances and needs, proposed numerous constructive strategies for European patent portfolio planning, creating a lively atmosphere on site.
This training aims to enable Hangzhou enterprises to gain a deeper understanding of the European patent application process, to master the core strategies for enhancing early grant certainty of patents, and to provide strong professional intellectual property support for expanding into the European market.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Scan the QR code to request the course materials</h2>
Training on Strategies for Early Grant Certainty in European Patent Applications
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/bihdo14t/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=343&amp;height=336" alt="" width="343" height="336">
*These materials are only provided to corporate personnel. Thank you for your understanding.
Read the original article
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=Mzg3NDc2MzA0OA==&amp;mid=2247540771&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=4f70b98bb7f5ca9f214f8dbda380691b&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">4·26 Intellectual Property Publicity Week | Hangzhou Protection Center Organizes Training on Strategies for Early Grant Certainty in European Patent Applications</a> (Source: Hangzhou Intellectual Property Protection Center)

Lusheng representative invited to Hangzhou Intellectual Property Protection Center to deliver training on strategies for early grant certainty in European patent applications

On 21 November, the signing ceremony for the cooperation agreement between the Beijing Intellectual Property Office and Tsinghua University, and the "High-Level Seminar on the Training of Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Talents" was successfully held at the School of Law of Tsinghua University. The conference brought together experts and scholars from government authorities, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), leading universities at home and abroad, well-known enterprises, and legal service institutions.
Landy Jiang, Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to speak at the seminar, where she joined a number of leading industry experts in exploring the internationalization and upgrading pathways for the training of intellectual property talents.
<h2>High-Level Seminar on the Training of Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Talents</h2>
Following the signing ceremony, the seminar opened with a speech by Hong Yan, Secretary-General of the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of the School of Law of Tsinghua University. Chen Wei, Second-Level Inspector of the Beijing Intellectual Property Office, Xue Song, Deputy Division Director of the Personnel Division of the Department of Human Resources of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, and Bai Guangqing, Senior Advisor of the China Office of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), respectively delivered remarks on topics such as the current situation and needs in the training of foreign-related intellectual property talents and WIPO’s global intellectual property talent training system.
In the subsequent exchange session, guests from relevant authorities, well-known universities at home and abroad, enterprises, and legal service institutions engaged in discussions on issues including the demand for talent training, curriculum and faculty development in universities, and the construction of a collaborative development ecosystem.
Focusing on issues related to the joint construction of an education ecosystem, Landy Jiang, drawing on the perspective of a frontline intellectual property service institution and the talent challenges and cooperation opportunities encountered in practice, shared insights on the following aspects to help build a virtuous closed-loop ecosystem for talent training:
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/media/x21f11cf/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=730&amp;height=543" alt="" width="730" height="543">
&nbsp;
<h3>1. Bridging the Gap Between Learning and Practice: Building a Bridge from Classroom to Real-World Practice</h3>
Attorney Jiang pointed out that there is often a gap between theoretical knowledge and practical operation. To help students shorten this transition period, she suggested that, while ensuring solid theoretical study, students should be provided with opportunities for case-based learning and participation in practical projects so as to develop their hands-on skills and problem-solving abilities.
At the same time, from the perspective of service institutions, she expressed the desire to cooperate with universities through joint curriculum development and the establishment of internship bases, enabling students to become familiar in advance with foreign-related intellectual property practice, cultivate practical skills and an international mindset, and shorten the period of adaptation to employment.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. Expanding International Horizons and Cultivating Interdisciplinary Talents</h3>
In her remarks, she noted that intellectual property is a highly internationalized field of law. National intellectual property systems develop through mutual learning, exhibiting both convergence and divergence. Therefore, comparative law research is of critical importance; it is necessary to understand similarities and differences from the cases and rules of various jurisdictions, build bridges, and resolve practical issues. She expressed the hope that more practical cases from different countries could be provided in the future to serve as references for the training of foreign-related intellectual property talents.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. Promoting the Integration of Intellectual Property with Other Industries</h3>
Attorney Jiang further noted that intellectual property is not only a right in the legal sense, but in essence also a form of technology and intellectual assets, which ultimately must serve business and empower business development. She further pointed out that the emergence of new technologies such as AI is constantly breaking down boundaries between fields, and that future intellectual property talents will need greater cross-disciplinary integration, combining legal knowledge, industry insight, and technological understanding. To this end, she suggested leveraging universities’ advantages in comprehensive disciplines and jointly establishing “IP Talent Training Laboratories” with enterprises and service institutions. Through project-based internships, the adaptation period for talents can be shortened, and pilot programs can be carried out in IP-intensive fields to promote deep integration of cross-disciplinary capabilities.
&nbsp;
<h3>4. Attaching Importance to the Cultivation of Soft Skills</h3>
In addition, Attorney Jiang emphasized that, in the training of intellectual property talents, in addition to professional competence, attention must also be paid to shaping intrinsic qualities such as resilience, curiosity, thirst for knowledge, and initiative, as well as developing their cross-cultural communication, problem-solving, and integrative thinking abilities. These soft skills are equally crucial.
&nbsp;
<h2>View the full report of the event</h2>
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5MzkyNzU1OA==&amp;mid=2649663244&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=169f96b6a3c38e8b2779d4df5f6d075e&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Signing Ceremony for the Cooperation Agreement between the Beijing Intellectual Property Office and Tsinghua University and High-Level Seminar on the Training of Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Talents Successfully Held</a> (Source: Tsinghua Intellectual Property)

Landy Jiang spoke at a high-level seminar on training foreign-related IP talents

On 11 September, Lusheng Law Firm, together with its strategic partner Rouse, successfully concluded the “IP Gathering” event, delivering to the guests a wealth of intellectually rigorous and practically valuable content in the field of intellectual property. A summary of the key insights shared during the event is set out below.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Evolution of Corporate IP Functions and Adaptation of the IP Service Industry</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/flxpth1b/img_2138501997208168005_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=500&amp;height=336" alt="" width="500" height="336">
Jeremy Newman, Partner and Chief Commercial Officer, Rouse
In the opening session, Jeremy analyzed from a macro perspective the profound transformation underway in corporate intellectual property functions, which are gradually shifting from traditional rights custodianship to value creation. Technological enablement has also allowed IP functions to address more complex issues, and the organizational form of IP functions has begun to break through the traditional framework of legal departments. In addition, the IP service industry is facing dual pressures of consolidation and efficiency enhancement, and there is an urgent need to respond to client demands in a more holistic, efficient and cross-disciplinary manner. Finally, he emphasized that the industry should proactively build global product portfolios, accelerate investment in technology, and continuously expand service boundaries so as to support enterprises in building sustainable competitive advantages in a rapidly changing environment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Overview of Annual Trademark Legislation and Examination Practice in China</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/5qyb1c1c/img_8252809368964051815_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=534&amp;height=357" alt="" width="534" height="357">
Melanie Zhu, Partner, Principal，Head of Shanghai Trade Marks &amp; Brands , Rouse
Melanie Zhu noted that the amendment to the PRC Trademark Law has been included in the State Council’s legislative work plan and is pending submission to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for deliberation, with the revision of the implementing regulations being advanced in parallel. In July this year, the Measures for the Expedited Examination of Trademark Registration Applications came into effect, focusing on areas of national strategy and facilitating the rapid grant of trademarks relating to science, technology and people’s livelihood. In 2024, the number of trademark applications continued to decline, while the number of registered trademarks in force approached 50 million. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has implemented new examination rules, raising the burden of proof on applicants for non-use cancellation and cracking down on malicious non-use cancellation applications. At the same time, the CNIPA has responded to public opinion by proactively screening registered trademarks related to people’s livelihood and, ex officio, rejecting or declaring invalid more than 200,000 deceptive trademark applications and registrations. The cases she cited were vivid and engaging, making the interpretation easier to understand.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">When Non-use Cancellation Enters “Deep Waters” — Preparedness Leads to Success</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/5kqjbv0h/img_4458290922922386062_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=485&amp;height=324" alt="" width="485" height="324">
Laura Zhao, Senior Trade Mark Attorney, Rouse
Against the backdrop of a stringent crackdown on malicious non-use cancellation, the threshold for filing such applications has risen significantly. Applicants for non-use cancellation are now required to investigate and provide information on the registrant’s business scope, use of the mark, and industry status, and to explain the reasons for filing the cancellation, in addition to making a good-faith undertaking. This reflects an inherent change in the burden of proof and the logical reasoning required in non-use cancellation proceedings. According to the latest notice from the CNIPA, the policy of cracking down on malicious filings will continue to be advanced, and the strict requirements for non-use cancellation applications will correspondingly remain in place.
With the rapid increase in the number of non-use cancellation cases, many such cases have entered the stages of review, administrative litigation and even retrial, where certain grey areas and focal issues have been clarified through judicial proceedings. In principle, the use of multiple marks on the same goods can support a finding of trademark use, but the trademarks involved should be clearly stipulated in the transaction contracts, and attention should be paid to the risks arising from mixed use with the supplier’s brand. For service marks, due to the intangible nature of services, use is reflected in service premises, transactional documents, advertising materials and exhibitions. According to recent judgments, “training” and “arranging and organizing training courses” fall into different similar sub-classes under Class 41 and must be proven separately. Pure export OEM activities are generally considered to constitute trademark use, but the chain of evidence must be complete. When collecting evidence for non-use cancellation, using sales information of others without authorization is risky, as the other party may be a potential infringer. Whether WeChat Moments constitutes an effective tool for trademark use has been addressed by the Supreme People’s Court in a recent retrial case, in which it rendered a guiding judgment that is both innovative and balanced.
Given the persistently high risks of non-use cancellation, rights holders should establish a “use is king” mindset in order to maintain the validity of registrations and safeguard commercial use and enforcement actions. Conducting a comprehensive review of existing brands, keeping abreast of business developments, and coordinating the evidentiary links across marketing, sales and logistics are the optimal means of addressing these risks.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">When Trademarks Collide with the “Absolute Prohibitions” — Dilemmas and Breakthroughs</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ik5jdgkm/img_4711905840204794984_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=555&amp;height=370" alt="" width="555" height="370">
Melvin Mei, Principal, Rouse
When discussing refusals based on absolute grounds,Melvin Mei pointed out that once a trademark application is refused on absolute grounds, the chances of overturning the refusal are very low. At present, refusals on absolute grounds are mainly concentrated on marks that are deceptive or have adverse social impact. The law not only prohibits their registration but also their use, and local market supervision authorities will investigate and penalize the use of such marks based on leads transferred by the CNIPA. He also referred to the remedies available after such marks are refused, alternative solutions, and the risks associated with use, and provided practical and effective response strategies.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Can Product Shape Designs with Functional Considerations Be Protected Under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law?</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/1ntbasnj/img_1243941223738663530_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=493&amp;height=328" alt="" width="493" height="328">
Alice Yu, Head of Shanghai Litigation Team, Lusheng Law Firm
Continuing her usual practice of case sharing, Alice Yu presented cases from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives, analyzing the commercial needs and legal risks that must be comprehensively considered in enforcement actions, thereby providing reference for rights deployment and enforcement strategies. By reference to a case in which product shape was protected as trade dress, she shared the difficulties commonly encountered in similar cases and corresponding solutions, covering multiple aspects including key and difficult issues in the case, judicial practice, formulation of litigation strategies, evidence preparation, conduct of hearings, and post-hearing follow-up. She also offered recommendations on the rights holder’s global rights deployment, enforcement strategies, commercial publicity, and responses to failed three-dimensional trademark applications.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Refined Division of Labor in Infringing Industries: How to Identify the Real Responsible Parties Through Evidence Mining?</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/1tte4zab/img_8212102807040422425_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=510&amp;height=341" alt="" width="510" height="341">
Heidi Feng,Principal, Lusheng Law Firm
The two cases shared by Heidi Feng focused on the mining of evidence and facts. As the infringement industry chain becomes more mature and the division of labor more refined, distributors have become the driving force in the market, while infringers have shifted to small and scattered entities. Infringers may also use nominee shareholding, family-run joint operations, entrusted operations and other arrangements to evade liability, thereby enabling repeated and continuous infringement. In civil IP litigation, how to utilize various evidence collection methods to mine, organize and present factual evidence, prove the defendants’ common intention to infringe, and at the same time make targeted rebuttals to the defenses of different defendants, so as to break the infringers’ “collusion” and effectively hold the relevant parties accountable, is not only the key to achieving a comprehensive victory, but also an important step in ensuring successful enforcement of judgments.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">How to Address Various IP Infringement Risks Arising from Economic Downturn</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/awvfbbpa/img_5766484529985484138_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=449&amp;height=300" alt="" width="449" height="300">
&nbsp;Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution, Lusheng Law Firm
Carol Wang reviewed and analyzed the infringement risks faced by enterprises as defendants. She pointed out that in responding to conventional risks such as pirated software and unauthorized font infringement, in addition to challenging the basis of the opposing party’s rights and the qualifications of its agent and employing negotiation skills, enterprises may also rely more proactively on the Civil Code, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China and other relevant laws and regulations on personal information and privacy protection, and she shared successful case outcomes in this regard. With respect to “patent squatting” and similar “patent trolling” cases, she discussed how to dismantle the opposing party’s rights basis through effective prior-use searches that can “strike at the heart” of the claim. In the absence of prior-use evidence, she explained how to defend by obtaining statements from the original inventor and combining them with evidence of the right holder’s bad faith. She also shared how to reduce litigation risks at the source through patent filing strategies in different jurisdictions and enhanced confidentiality measures in the circulation of samples. In addition, Wang Shan reminded clients that the long-arm jurisdiction provisions in the newly amended Anti-Unfair Competition Law may increase the risk of being sued for infringement as a result of overseas enforcement actions, and discussed how to respond. Finally, she recommended that enterprises take into account various factors in a holistic manner to improve the predictability of both enforcement strategies and risk prevention outcomes.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Event Highlights</h2>
During the Q&amp;A session and coffee breaks, the speakers and corporate representatives engaged in lively interactions, exchanging professional insights in the field of intellectual property and creating lasting memories of the event.
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/i5zjvr0b/img_1047695416276326219_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=533&amp;height=355" alt="" width="533" height="355">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/aa0nkawe/img_3679729535779357912_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=516&amp;height=345" alt="" width="516" height="345">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/owol2djc/img_2802418761902125799_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=506&amp;height=341" alt="" width="506" height="341">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/groplszn/img_1425578291426073302_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=500&amp;height=333" alt="" width="500" height="333">

IP gathering: navigating 2025 enterprise intellectual property trends

On 21 November, the British Consulate-General in Shanghai and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) held an exchange event in Shanghai. Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to attend. She joined representatives from the British Consulate-General in Shanghai, the UKIPO, and numerous industry peers at the residence of the British Consul-General in Shanghai for in-depth discussions on China–UK intellectual property issues.
The visit to China by the UKIPO delegation, led by Adam Williams, Chief Executive and Comptroller-General of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office, further promoted strategic dialogue and practical cooperation between China and the United Kingdom in the field of intellectual property. The atmosphere at the event was lively, and the participants shared valuable insights on the latest developments and practical experience in the China–UK intellectual property arena.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/aixjfs13/img_1785518681049236704_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=535&amp;height=397" alt="" width="535" height="397">Third from the left: Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution

Carol Wang attended an IPO UK event at the British Consulate Shanghai

Mi Li

Yvette Feng

Recently, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the world’s leading centers for cancer research and treatment, jointly hosted an international exchange event with WIPO on October 16. WIPO dispatched a six-member delegation of intellectual property experts led by Deputy Director General Lisa Jorgenson to Dana-Farber’s Longwood Medical Area campus in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, where they gathered with experts from the Institute and invited patent law professionals from around the world to engage in discussions under the theme of “Global Intellectual Property Systems and Resources.”
Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner Rouse International were invited to participate in this exchange and, together with other guests, conducted in-depth discussions on topics such as global innovation, international patent policy, and innovation in artificial intelligence. Among them, &nbsp;Mi Li, Patent Director of Lusheng, and patent attorney Yvette Feng&nbsp;participated in the event and discussions as representatives of the team via online access.
&nbsp;
<h2>Related link:</h2>
<a href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247518378&amp;idx=2&amp;sn=53177c65840616736a0bcc213e97e970&amp;chksm=fc3d6d3218ea15a418752c7c3d49b529c57ebc1943ba4f7f19fb4ef6de69b094f824029e0e08&amp;mpshare=1&amp;scene=1&amp;srcid=1030CE6zZbLsKKkLgijgbALu&amp;sharer_shareinfo=59b6f1105bf42caf2f8bf58f9be20c0b&amp;sharer_shareinfo_first=59b6f1105bf42caf2f8bf58f9be20c0b#rd">Public Interest | Lusheng supports the “Jimmy Fund Walk” charity walking event to promote cancer research and patient care</a>

Lusheng was invited to join an exchange between Dana Farber Cancer Institute and WIPO delegates

Recently, Lusheng Law Firm made a donation in support of the “Jimmy Fund Walk” charitable walking event initiated by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in the United States, thereby contributing in a concrete manner to cancer research and patient care, and demonstrating the firm’s firm commitment to fulfilling its corporate social responsibility.
&nbsp;
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is a world-leading institution for cancer research and treatment, dedicated to driving scientific breakthroughs and improving patients’ quality of life. This year, the Institute’s in-house legal team (OGC team) participated in the “Jimmy Fund Walk” under the name “Motion to Cure,” raising funds through collective action to provide critical resources for cancer research, medical support for patients, and assistance programs for their families. During the preparation of the event, the Institute extended invitations to its long-term external legal counsel, seeking to pool the strength of multiple parties to jointly advance this public welfare mission that concerns people’s livelihood and well-being.
As a long-trusted legal partner of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Lusheng Law Firm responded promptly upon receiving the invitation and, together with its strategic partner Rouse International, jointly expressed its support, conveying care and hope through its donation.
We firmly believe that every step can make a difference for cancer patients. Going forward, Lusheng Law Firm will continue to work hand in hand with its partners, actively participate in public welfare undertakings, and promote sustainable social development.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">“Jimmy Fund Walk” Charitable Walking Event</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/onnlt2xa/img_2421469003729048387_image.png" alt="" width="454" height="372">

Lusheng supports the Jimmy Fund Walk, aiding cancer research and patient care

On 7 September, during the China Trademark Annual Conference, the “Corporate Cross-border Brand Protection Salon,” jointly hosted by the China Trademark Association and the Shanxi Trademark and Brand Standardization Construction Promotion Association and organized by Rouse, was successfully held in Taiyuan. Focusing on the key issues and challenges of cross-border brand protection in the course of Chinese enterprises “going global,” the salon invited representatives from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), Customs, and industry experts to share and exchange in depth on practical strategies for international registration, customs protection, and brand protection in the European, Southeast Asian and Middle Eastern markets.
Lusheng Law Firm, together with its strategic partner Rouse, brought several senior experts from its offices in China and abroad to speak at the salon, and, together with official representatives, provided rich analysis of legal market developments and practical experience sharing.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">International Trademark Registration Safeguarding Enterprises Going Global</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/iscnqvme/img_5776820471266108688_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=557&amp;height=370" alt="" width="557" height="370">
Yang Linli, Deputy Director, Division I of International Registration, China National Intellectual Property Administration
Yang Linli stated that the international trademark registration system plays a supporting role in enterprises’ efforts to “go global.” Citing the latest data, he pointed out that Chinese enterprises are facing increasingly serious trademark squatting in overseas markets, particularly in countries along the Belt and Road. He introduced the Madrid System, which has a history of more than one hundred years, and elaborated in detail on its advantages of “one application, protection in multiple countries,” covering aspects such as language, costs and centralized management. He emphasized that Chinese applicants are proactive in using the Madrid System, with the average number of designated countries per application exceeding the global level, which reflects the forward-looking awareness of Chinese enterprises in their international deployment and also shows that systematic use of the Madrid System has become an important means of cross-border brand protection for enterprises.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Facilitating Cross-border Expansion of Enterprises</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/qh1f2dcc/img_676144238151612748_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=535&amp;height=358" alt="" width="535" height="358">
Zhao Zhonghua, Deputy Director, Division I of Comprehensive Business, Taiyuan Customs
Zhao Zhonghua stated that customs protection of intellectual property rights is an important safeguard for the overseas expansion of corporate brands. Through both ex officio and application-based models, Customs provides two-way protection of intellectual property rights such as trademarks, patents and copyrights at import and export stages, and, relying on the recordal system, special enforcement campaigns and smart law enforcement tools, continuously combats infringement and illegal activities. She recommended that enterprises complete customs recordal in a timely manner, proactively maintain rights information, and actively cooperate with customs in investigations and confirmation of rights, so as to efficiently safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Practical Strategies for Brand Protection in the European Market</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/odqhkdd2/img_8237471023446149016_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=523&amp;height=343" alt="" width="523" height="343">
Matti Lindberg, Attorney, Rouse Sweden Office
Matti Lindberg pointed out that repeat applications for EU trademarks must be supported by genuine commercial intent; otherwise, they may be regarded as an abuse of the trademark registration system. In recent years, Chinese applicants have become the largest source of EU trademark applications, and common issues encountered include transliteration-based squatting and the determination of genuine use. He suggested that enterprises may combine EU design protection as a low-cost and efficient supplementary strategy, and conduct targeted searches and monitoring for key markets such as Germany and France. Overall, in enforcing rights in Europe, it is necessary to focus on differentiated strategies, preservation of evidence and proactive monitoring, in order to systematically address intellectual property challenges in the European market.
&nbsp;
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/shxhgipa/img_735184683493499590_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=552&amp;height=369" alt="" width="552" height="369">
Melanie Zhu, Partner, Principal，Head of Shanghai Trade Marks &amp; Brands Team·Trade Marks &amp; Brands
Melanie Zhu, Partner, Principal, Head of Shanghai Trade Marks &amp; Brands Team, Trade Marks &amp; Brands, stated that, unlike Chinese trademark practice, repeat EU trademark applications filed without genuine intention to use and solely to circumvent use requirements may be found to be in bad faith. A similar trend has emerged in the UK this year, where the authorities proactively examine trademark applications that lack an intention to use (for example, where the description or classes of goods/services covered are overly broad, etc.) and issue examination reports. She advised that Chinese enterprises, when planning their deployment in Europe, should: prepare filing plans in advance, focus on core markets and competitors to optimize search and filing strategies; ensure that Chinese-character marks are used as trademarks, so as to avoid being regarded as decorative patterns; and collect and retain evidence of trademark use in a timely manner for future enforcement needs.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Trademark Defense in the Southeast Asian Market: Winning Strategies Against Squatting and Counterfeiting</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/tuykdbot/img_2172939580704511522_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=546&amp;height=363" alt="" width="546" height="363">
Edmund J. Baranda, Managing Partner, Baranda &amp; Associates (Rouse Network Member, Philippines)
Edmund J. Baranda systematically analyzed the challenges and enforcement practices relating to intellectual property protection in the ASEAN region. He noted that ASEAN, as the world’s fifth-largest economy, has a counterfeit market valued at as much as USD 36 billion, with an increasingly evident trend of localized counterfeiting. ASEAN consists of ten countries whose laws, enforcement and remedies differ significantly, and the applicability of civil, criminal, administrative and customs measures varies from country to country. Therefore, Chinese enterprises expanding into ASEAN must formulate strategies tailored to the characteristics of each market. In addition, the rapid development of e-commerce and live-streaming sales has brought regulatory challenges, and brand owners must rely on platform codes of conduct and government cooperation to effectively combat counterfeiting.
&nbsp;
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/5fwf21l4/img_5269551577197734515_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=536&amp;height=357" alt="" width="536" height="357">
Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement, Lusheng Law Firm
Drawing on enforcement practice in Southeast Asia, Sophia Hou pointed out that the region comprises many countries with widely differing systems, and that customs protection is unevenly developed overall. She emphasized that, compared with China's "super-strong protection," customs recordal in countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia started late, proactive seizures are rare, and enforcement relies heavily on post-fact investigations and complaints. She recommended that enterprises resolve disputes efficiently through attorney's letter negotiations, cross-border tracing and enforcement, and coordinated actions between Chinese and foreign parties, while paying close attention to compliance management.
&nbsp;
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/qotkxyao/img_2851277090391599112_image.png" alt="" width="532" height="350">
Fianka Permana, Trademark Manager, Rouse Indonesia Office
Fianka Permana systematically elaborated on key strategies for trademark registration and enforcement in Southeast Asia. While the Southeast Asian market has significant potential, the risk of trademark squatting is high, and in jurisdictions such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand, rights holders often face difficulties in cancellation after registration and high evidentiary thresholds for non-use cancellation. Therefore, enterprises should plan registrations as early as possible and combine monitoring with the accumulation of evidence of use to avoid squatting and legal disputes. In addition, she suggested exploring the recognition of well-known trademarks (for example, in the Philippines, well-known trademark recognition may be initiated upon application) to strengthen the effectiveness of regional intellectual property protection.
&nbsp;
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/jveors1b/img_7731056080510367207_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=583&amp;height=390" alt="" width="583" height="390">
Amanda Yang, Principal
Amanda Yang pointed out that intellectual property protection strategies in Southeast Asia must be highly localized, as the differences between countries are significant and domestic models cannot simply be transplanted. She cited as examples that in countries such as Indonesia and Thailand, procedures for cancelling registered trademarks are complex, the burden of proof is heavy, and cases are heard by the courts rather than administrative authorities, with stringent evidentiary requirements, long timelines and high costs. Recently, Indonesia has further extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, thereby increasing the difficulty of enforcement. She advised that enterprises and peers must keep abreast of the latest legal developments in each country and maintain close communication with reliable local lawyers or agencies, so as to avoid strategic failures caused by systemic differences and information lag.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Breaking Through in the Middle East: Strategies and Practice for Brand Confirmation and Enforcement</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/oxnlf5r1/img_9120534124783707433_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=565&amp;height=380" alt="" width="565" height="380">
Hatty Cui,Principal, General Manager of China, China Head of Trade Marks &amp; Brands ,Rouse China Office
Hatty Cui noted that the Middle East is transforming from a traditional energy hub into a global investment hotspot, and that China has become the largest source of imports and an important economic and trade partner for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. She systematically compared the differences between Saudi Arabia and the UAE in procedures such as trademark application, opposition and cancellation, emphasizing that the systems in the Middle East are complex and the culture is unique, and enterprises should avoid directly transplanting domestic experience. She specifically reminded enterprises to pay attention to the requirement in Saudi Arabia for powers of attorney to be legalized under the Hague Apostille Convention, the time-consuming embassy legalization procedures in the UAE, and key differences in the burden of proof and response deadlines in opposition and cancellation proceedings in both jurisdictions. She further recommended that enterprises, by combining localized strategies, long-term monitoring and proactive action, and relying on reliable local partners, effectively build a brand “moat.”
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Insights into the Global Intellectual Property Industry Landscape</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/2ucjozvp/img_2614710091016389866_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=548&amp;height=366" alt="" width="548" height="366">
Jeremy Newman, Chief Commercial Officer, Rouse UK Office
From a global perspective, Jeremy Newman shared his observations on key trends in the field of intellectual property. He pointed out that intellectual property activity is on a trajectory of continuous growth, a process that is clearly being profoundly influenced by artificial intelligence and geopolitical factors. At the same time, corporate intellectual property functions are undergoing profound transformation, shifting from traditional rights custodianship to value creation, and technological empowerment is enabling them to handle more complex issues, with the organizational form of IP functions beginning to break out of the traditional legal department framework. In addition, the intellectual property services industry is facing dual pressures of consolidation and efficiency enhancement, and there is an urgent need to respond to client demands in a more global, efficient and cross-disciplinary manner. Finally, he emphasized that the industry should actively build global product portfolios, accelerate investment in technology, and continuously expand the boundaries of services, so as to support enterprises in building sustainable competitive advantages in a rapidly changing environment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Event Highlights</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/1phf0n43/img_7839637937372548379_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=546&amp;height=360" alt="" width="546" height="360">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/l5el4ebh/img_1170803546879989625_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=550&amp;height=363" alt="" width="550" height="363">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/kcllesyg/img_8787587945494705410_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=539&amp;height=363" alt="" width="539" height="363">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/rhdncujn/img_7765836098797004470_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=527&amp;height=349" alt="" width="527" height="349">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/5zidvnpd/img_8421813685156950100_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=514&amp;height=341" alt="" width="514" height="341">
As Chinese enterprises accelerate their pace of going global, cross-border brand protection has become a key factor determining the success or failure of globalization. This salon conducted an in-depth analysis from the macro strategy of international trademark registration to localized practices in key markets such as Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East, with the aim of building systematic, end-to-end brand protection solutions for enterprises. Only by continuously focusing on the global intellectual property landscape can enterprises seize new opportunities amid challenges and enable the global journey of Chinese brands to proceed with greater composure and confidence.

China brands going global: strategies and practice for cross‑border brand protection

Vivian Zhang

Gavin Gan

On 6 June, Rouse International, together with its strategic partner Lusheng Law Firm, successfully held a seminar on practical issues in domestic and overseas intellectual property disputes in Guangzhou.
This seminar focused on two core sections, namely "Analysis of Domestic Cases" and "Global Enforcement Strategies", jointly exploring the hot and difficult issues in IP protection. It aimed to seek solutions to the challenges encountered in domestic and overseas intellectual property matters and provided right holders with comprehensive and multi-dimensional guidance and support on how to respond in practice to domestic and international IP challenges.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/hgbb3dgj/img_7185825344920000735_1677d02e13089a6f658d477133ae6249.jpg" alt="" width="168" height="168">
Please scan the code to follow the service account and apply for the course materials of this event.
&nbsp;
The seminar was opened by Rouse International partner Amanda Yang, who delivered the opening remarks and, in the section on global enforcement strategies, provided a professional interpretation of the relevant legal systems of Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia in relation to trademark squatting in Southeast Asia, and shared response strategies.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/2rsbxtqt/img_3617253920379989107_ec50ce4506d4efdf7c1d13d9b13c55b5.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=455&amp;height=303" alt="" width="455" height="303">
Amanda Yang
Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement of Lusheng Law Firm, shared with the participants offensive and defensive strategies for IP enforcement, and presented the patent infringement case concerning the Sony game controller trademark, which was selected as a typical case of administrative protection of intellectual property rights in Guangdong Province (released in 2024).
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/p2ff2gam/img_7752468227956515035_5024bd3cf30a3b94626ec3354bc9aa1c.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=458&amp;height=305" alt="" width="458" height="305">
Sophia Hou
Alice Hou, Head of the Guangzhou Litigation Team of Lusheng Law Firm, presented to the participants the honours that Rouse and its strategic partner Lusheng Law Firm have received over the years in the field of intellectual property.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/twbd3jqq/img_6998771411215261336_ea23797b331801a100a8ca679033476e.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=518&amp;height=346" alt="" width="518" height="346">
Alice Hou
Senior attorney Ciara Huang of Lusheng Law Firm cited the "Juratek" OEM trademark dispute and the "FILA" case as a comparison, and delivered a highly substantive presentation on dispute cases involving trademark infringement in foreign-related OEM processing.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/4q0pl313/img_2411094417443845952_85c863e867084e730e2a44995463375e.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=466&amp;height=311" alt="" width="466" height="311">
Attorney Yang Min
Attorney Ciara Huang of Lusheng Law Firm conducted an in-depth analysis of landmark cases, with the first “FILA” case on judicial recognition of a well-known trademark as a typical representative.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/3irb2rjv/img_1596892754472127574_1da6bf3cfdbe92154879156adb8a8313.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=407&amp;height=272" alt="" width="445" height="296">
Ciara Huang
Attorney Vivian Zhang of Lusheng Law Firm gave a detailed introduction to the typical series of cases involving the intersection of criminal and civil matters—the “Christmas Elf” series of cases. Among them, the case in which the Christmas elf doll, as a three-dimensional artistic work, obtained criminal protection of copyright for the first time attracted extensive media attention and coverage. This series of cases also received several awards, including Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection (2017–2021) by the People’s Procuratorate of Longgang District, Shenzhen; Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases (2016–2020) by the People’s Court of Longgang District, Shenzhen; Top Ten Foreign-related Intellectual Property Cases in Guangdong in 2020; and Outstanding Lingnan Intellectual Property Litigation Cases in 2020.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/zasbqlfe/img_4307674395457161014_0ea8384d5881577036743c46cb576c90.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=472&amp;height=314" alt="" width="490" height="326">
Vivian Zhang
Attorney Gavin Gan of Lusheng Law Firm systematically sorted out the key points of enforcement in different jurisdictions, assisting enterprises in resolving intellectual property protection issues encountered in the course of going global.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ogzf100s/img_5599227700147382679_2803a9dccedbcf4faddc5a8080cc8c87.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=440&amp;height=293" alt="" width="484" height="322">
Gavin Gan
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/dyfbddkh/img_7652832094656349675_4e5ccd2dfea1aec6a091af402c0648d6.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=452&amp;height=301" alt="" width="452" height="301">

Seminar on key IP cases and disputes at home and abroad successfully held in Guangzhou

Janet Liu

On 13 August, at the invitation of LCOUNCIL, Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner Rouse jointly held an online seminar themed “Brand Protection Battle: In-depth Analysis of Landmark Cases and Cutting-edge Litigation and Enforcement Strategies – Breakthroughs in Difficult Issues such as Punitive Damages, Cross-regional Criminal Enforcement, and Rights Protection in Key Industries”.
The key points shared at this online seminar are summarized below, and we cordially invite you to review them with us.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q: As a right holder, how should one effectively combat repeated infringement?</h3>
A: In practice, repeated infringement occurs from time to time. To better combat repeated infringement, it is necessary to effectively curb infringing acts from the two aspects of prevention and deterrence. First, after taking initial enforcement action against a target, the right holder should, to the extent possible, require the counterparty to sign a Settlement Agreement or Letter of Undertaking, under which the counterparty undertakes to cease the infringement and agrees on punitive damages for any repeated infringement. Second, after the case is closed, the target should be subject to regular monitoring. Once any infringing act is discovered, the right holder should promptly conduct investigation and evidence collection and initiate litigation, relying on the evidence and the Settlement Agreement to claim substantial punitive damages, thereby using the court’s judgment to effectively crack down on repeated infringers and to effectively deter other infringers in the market.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q: In criminal–civil crossover cases, what are the key points for obtaining the court’s support for a claim for punitive damages?</h3>
A: First, it is necessary to determine whether the case satisfies the conditions for the application of punitive damages. In criminal–civil crossover cases, the infringer’s subjective malice in infringing intellectual property rights is usually not difficult to prove, and the criminal case will also make a clear finding on the infringer’s subjective intent. The main difficulty lies in proving that the infringing act has reached the standard of “serious circumstances”. To this end, it is necessary to rely on the evidentiary materials in the criminal case and comprehensively analyze such factors as the infringer’s means and frequency of infringement, the duration, geographical scope, scale and consequences of the infringing acts, and the infringer’s conduct during the proceedings, so as to prove the existence of serious circumstances. Where circumstances expressly listed in judicial interpretations are present, such as repeated infringement, engaging in intellectual property infringement as a business, or obtaining huge profits from infringement, the likelihood of obtaining the court’s support is relatively high.
In addition, sufficient evidence supporting the calculation of the amount of punitive damages can also increase the likelihood that the court will apply punitive damages. In criminal–civil crossover cases, attention should be paid to the findings in the criminal case regarding the amount of illegal gains or sales. In particular, where the infringer has infringed the intellectual property rights of multiple right holders (for example, counterfeiting multi-brand products), it is necessary to consider whether the amounts relating to the asserted intellectual property rights can be distinguished. Based on the findings in the criminal case regarding the amount of illegal gains or sales, the right holder may claim to use the infringer’s illegal gains or the benefits obtained from the infringement as the basis for calculation. Where the criminal case has ascertained only the sales amount but not the illegal gains, the infringer’s profits from infringement may also be calculated by submitting the industry profit margin or the profit margin of the right holder’s products.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q: With respect to brand protection, apart from early and comprehensive protection of brand elements, are there any other recommendations?</h3>
A: With respect to brand protection, in addition to registering brand elements “as early as possible and in all classes”, more attention should be paid to the “brand life cycle”, which is a second battlefield that is often overlooked. Once products have achieved localized production, with dense distribution channels and transparent pricing, counterfeit goods tend to be relatively restrained as profit margins are compressed; the real risk is concentrated in the “initial import stage”. At this stage, the product appearance, batch information, and traceability methods are not yet familiar to consumers, and official channels are also limited, making it easy for an “information blind spot” to arise. Counterfeit goods can thereby mix in and may even be mistaken for genuine “parallel imports”, turning this into a high-incidence disaster area.Many groups hold multiple brand portfolios, and the pace at which each brand enters the PRC market varies. It is common for rights protection budgets to be compressed on the grounds that import sales are still small. However, it is precisely during this period that counterfeit goods seize consumer mindshare through “high premium, small-batch” sales, and the risk is greatest.Therefore, it is recommended that right holders front-load their enforcement budgets, reserve sufficient budget, elevate the risk level associated with the import window period, and, ahead of counterfeiters, firmly implant the “genuine product standard” in consumers’ minds. This is the true first-mover advantage.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q: For brand protection of game-related electronic products, how should right holders respond to the evolution of infringement methods at different stages?</h3>
A: Taking game controller products as an example, we have experienced three stages.
Stage One: Before the highest-version chip was cracked, the market first saw controllers that imitated its industrial design, some of which fell within the scope of our client’s patent protection. At this stage, the right holder could carry out large-scale enforcement against infringers based on acts infringing design patents. As infringers were less vigilant at this stage, the right holder could obtain infringement evidence through direct investigations and then file complaints with the local Administrations for Market Regulation.
Stage Two: After large-scale enforcement against patent infringement, the number of similar infringers in the market decreased, and some infringers began to sell peripheral products for counterfeit controllers (such as charging docks, gaming headsets, etc.). At this stage, our enforcement strategy was to use trademark infringement as the cause of action, depending on the infringer’s infringing circumstances, and to comprehensively employ administrative and criminal measures for enforcement.
Stage Three: Once chips for cracking game controllers emerged, the scope of infringement expanded. At this stage, we conducted a large number of test purchases to obtain samples of game controllers from various sources, analyzed the possible manufacturers of the cracking chips and the principal infringers, and ultimately identified the source of the cracking chips, whereupon we conducted investigations against them and fed the cracking technology back to the client. On the basis of understanding the cracking principles, we provided the client with comprehensive legal advice and enforcement strategies. For counterfeit-type infringement, we continued to take enforcement action on the basis of trademark infringement, whereas for controllers using third-party shells but containing cracking chips as their core, we adopted copyright infringement or unfair competition as the basis for rights protection.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q: Could you share some recent cases of cross-regional criminal enforcement?</h3>
A: Case One: In January 2025, we coordinated the local public security authorities in Guangzhou and Huizhou to carry out simultaneous criminal enforcement actions against the target, achieving a full-chain crackdown from upstream manufacturers and processing sites to downstream online-store warehouses. This case was a successful example of territorial jurisdiction prior to the issuance of the new regulations by the Ministry of Public Security. Through joint enforcement by the local Administrations for Market Regulation and Public Security Bureaus, the production and sales chain of counterfeit goods upstream and downstream was effectively dismantled.
Case Two: In June 2025, after the issuance of the new regulations by the Ministry of Public Security, we assisted the Foshan public security authorities in carrying out criminal enforcement against a target who resided in Foshan but whose infringing warehouse was located in Guangzhou. While seizing a large quantity of counterfeit goods, we used online-store data from the suspect’s computer and mobile phone to link the group based in Foshan with the warehouse located in Guangzhou. This was a successful practical experience of cross-regional jurisdiction following the issuance of the new regulations.

Brand protection: key case analysis and cutting-edge litigation strategies

On March 26, at the invitation of IP Finance, Landy Jiang, Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm, served as the keynote speaker and delivered an online presentation titled "Detailed Analysis of Tesla v. 'Tesla Beer' — RMB 5 Million in Damages Awarded + Six 'TESLA' Trademarks Recognized as Well-known Marks."
The key points of this online presentation are summarized below, and we cordially invite you to review them together with us.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q:How can one provide evidence to prove that consumer confusion has been caused? What is the probative value of consumer statements?</h3>
A: Consumer confusion includes actual confusion and presumed confusion (i.e., likelihood of confusion). The determination of confusion is usually a comprehensive assessment based on multiple factors, including the distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark, the degree of similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks, whether actual confusion has occurred, and so forth. Consumer comments evidencing confusion are often “icing on the cake” type evidence. Generally, the overall case and various categories of evidence still serve as the foundation, corroborating and cross-referencing each other to ultimately achieve the evidentiary purpose, rather than relying solely on a limited number of individual consumer comments to prove that confusion has actually occurred.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q:The calculation method provided is also based only on inferential computation. In such infringement cases, does this mean that it is relatively difficult for punitive damages to be upheld?</h3>
A: Yes. It is relatively difficult to establish punitive damages solely on the basis of inferential computation. Under the current laws, the application of punitive damages first requires the determination of a compensatory base, such as the plaintiff’s losses, the defendant’s profits, or a reasonable royalty; statutory damages cannot serve as the basis for punitive damages. However, if evidence can be organized in different ways and from multiple perspectives to prove the right holder’s losses or the defendant’s profits, it is not precluded to use inferential computation to derive the compensatory base for the application of punitive damages. Even if punitive damages cannot be applied, such an approach facilitates the court’s comprehensive consideration of factors relevant to damages and supports the determination of a relatively high amount of damages.
&nbsp;
<h3>Q:What is the difference between claims based on dilution and confusion in relation to well-known trademarks, and is there a difference in the level of difficulty in practice?</h3>
A: Both dilution and confusion are grounds for seeking protection of well-known trademarks. Generally speaking, the threshold for establishing confusion is higher, requiring that the relevant public is likely to be misled as to the source of the goods, or to mistakenly believe that there is an association between the plaintiff and the defendant. If confusion cannot be established, we will advance claims from the perspective of dilution, namely that the defendant’s conduct is likely to diminish the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s well-known trademark. In practice, as a matter of strategy, we often assert both confusion and dilution in the same case, usually assessing confusion as a priority and using dilution as a backup and supplementary claim.

Case analysis: Tesla v. Tesla Beer

On 26–27 June, the Third Frontier IP Pan-Entertainment Forum was successfully held in Shanghai, focusing on the theme of "Building New Entertainment Formats through Intellectual Property". The forum brought together content creators, entertainment law experts, corporate representatives and innovative forces to jointly explore how the pan-entertainment industry can achieve sustainable innovation and growth in an increasingly complex market environment.
Carol Wang,&nbsp;Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution&nbsp;of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to attend and served as both moderator and panelist in the roundtable discussion session. She engaged in an in-depth discussion with the guests on the topic of "End-to-End Copyright Protection and Licensing of Derivative Products in Film and Television IP Development".
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Roundtable Forum</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/spappofw/img_7743211821717723049_观点快揽1.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=520&amp;height=346" alt="" width="520" height="346">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/i1xhfeyc/img_6586096612480962847_观点快揽2.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=518&amp;height=345" alt="" width="518" height="345">
From left to right in Figure 2: Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm; Polly Jiang, Legal Director of Spin Master China; Cai Yichen, Legal Manager of iQIYI; Tan Naiwen, Expert Legal Counsel of Tencent Group; and Jiang Yehong, Legal Director of Beijing Bona Film Group Limited.
&nbsp;
During the roundtable discussion,&nbsp;Carol Wang engaged in in‑depth interactions with guest representatives from film and television production companies, platforms, and toy and entertainment companies, discussing the challenges and practical experience relating to end‑to‑end IP protection in the development of audiovisual works and the licensing of derivative products.
Under the new Internet‑driven business models, the main pain points in IP protection for film and television works are as follows: (1) at the early stage of content creation, it is difficult for content producers to foresee whether relevant elements will develop into popular IP; (2) during the broadcasting period of film and television works, rampant infringing and pirated streaming on video websites leaves platforms facing the dilemma of “infringement from the moment of launch”; (3) at the subsequent rights‑enforcement stage, it is difficult to collect evidence of reputation and likelihood of confusion, courts tend to award low damages, and enforcement is difficult; and (4) in the course of developing peripheral derivative products, breaches of contract by licensees occur frequently.
In response, &nbsp;Carol Wang conducted an in‑depth discussion with the guests and jointly summarized the following recommendations:
1. At the early stage of creation and development, brand owners should put in place a comprehensive IP strategy covering trademarks, copyrights, patents and other rights, encompassing various elements such as audiovisual works and musical works in films and television series, as well as the images of film and television characters. In film and television works, attention should be paid to the long‑term, consistent inheritance and use of protectable elements that are recognizable to consumers, with a view to cultivating “evergreen IP”. This will make it possible, where no timely IP layout was made at an earlier stage, to seek protection under Article 6 of the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law. At the same time, the ownership of IP should be clearly stipulated in contracts with commercial partners so as to avoid subsequent disputes over title.
2. At the subsequent stage of IP enforcement, in addition to measures such as filing complaints with platforms and sending cease‑and‑desist letters to infringers, right holders may consider bringing civil actions to obtain favorable judgments. At the same time, they should consider relying on different legal bases, including trademarks, copyrights, patents and competitive interests, in order to broaden the scope of IP protection. For malicious infringers—particularly those engaging in long‑term, repeated infringement under different guises, or those committing comprehensive infringement of film and television works and their peripheral derivative products and obtaining huge illegal gains—targeted policies may be formulated to intensify enforcement efforts, designate them as key targets, and seek high damages awards so as to better deter other infringers.
3. The development of derivative products should generate a positive long‑tail effect for film and television works. With respect to licensing of derivative products, brand owners should clearly define in the licence agreements the categories of licensed products and the term of the licence, and stipulate that the licensee must obtain the brand owner’s approval before developing new products, so as to avoid the licensee operating beyond the licensed categories or scope. If infringement is caused by the licensee’s non‑compliance, the licensee should bear liability. In addition, attention should be paid to imposing restrictions on the use of new tools such as AI in the process of developing derivative products and to applying appropriate human intervention, in order to mitigate the risk of infringement arising from AI‑generated content.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Lusheng Booth</h2>
Lusheng set up a carefully designed booth at the conference venue to comprehensively showcase its entertainment law practice and to engage in lively exchanges with participants on insights and perspectives regarding intellectual property in the pan‑entertainment industry.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ipfosb3j/img_9058360239363523607_观点快揽-路盛展位1.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=548&amp;height=367" alt="" width="548" height="367">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/i00fsxl1/img_99911486731798119_观点快揽-路盛展位2.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=546&amp;height=362" alt="" width="546" height="362">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/1jkltw0i/img_2264249935490074137_观点快揽-路盛展位3.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=542&amp;height=362" alt="" width="542" height="362">
&nbsp;
<hr>
Apply for the Industry Report
“Research Report on the Development and Protection of Intellectual Property in China’s Film and Television Industry (2024)”
The electronic version has been officially released during the Shanghai International Film Festival
Please scan the code to obtain the full electronic version
*This material is only distributed to corporate personnel. Thank you for your understanding.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/khmmen2j/img_5474376903466966800_ccc22f8e8464c99e7655fce2fe6b8215.png" alt="" width="234" height="332">

Full-chain copyright protection and derivative licensing in film and TV IP development

On June 21, the first day of the 27th Shanghai International Film Festival Film Market, Lusheng Law Firm, as an exhibitor, made a remarkable appearance under the theme of "AI Opens a New Chapter in the Entertainment Industry, Lusheng Safeguards the Course of IP", and jointly released with its strategic partner Rouse International the latest industry research results, namely the Research Report on the Development and Protection of Intellectual Property in China's Film and Television Industry (2024).
&nbsp;
Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution, and Aria Tian, China Head of Research Unit of Rouse International, served as keynote speakers at the launch event. They provided an in-depth interpretation of this research report focusing on intellectual property in the film and television industry, which attracted wide attention from film and television institutions and industry professionals from China and abroad.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Highlights of the Launch Event</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/gpcb0flx/img_8931875270296173301_8898f16fa081b0adb6f4fecee850a4d1.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=581&amp;height=387" alt="" width="581" height="387">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/oziebwan/img_3362254544766303725_27a7226aee4d20392a974c18479f597a.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=576&amp;height=385" alt="" width="576" height="385">
Aria Tian China Head of Research Unit, Rouse International
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/bszjmida/img_5846795935842020152_6b9ba0d6e5f90ee1866681e3ca87ab77.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=571&amp;height=381" alt="" width="571" height="381">
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/weweiors/img_739046233915262922_7d4005e2c723569f6e8001c81a423d2d.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=572&amp;height=382" alt="" width="572" height="382">
Carol Wang
Managing Partner of Shanghai Office,
Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution
At the launch event, Ms. Aria Tian and Attorney Carol Wang shared in depth the latest research and cutting-edge issues of the Research Report on the Development and Protection of Intellectual Property in China's Film and Television Industry (2024), and discussed the following key points:
The report shows that in 2024 the film market demonstrated strong resilience, while the drama series industry experienced "reduced quantity and improved quality". The number of registrations of film and television works reached 136,345, representing a year-on-year increase of 15% compared with 2023.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Prosperity in Industry Scale and Licensing Operations</h2>
In 2024, the total annual retail sales of licensed merchandise in the domestic Chinese market reached RMB 155.09 billion, a year-on-year increase of 10.7%. Among newly emerged IPs, the categories of cartoons and animation, culture and art, and film, television and variety shows accounted for the largest proportions. The film and television industry has achieved remarkable results in licensing and derivative product development, with some leading enterprises delivering outstanding performance.
&nbsp;
<h2>AI Technology Reshapes the Creative Ecosystem, Copyright Compliance Systems Accelerate Improvement</h2>
AI technology has covered the entire film and television production process, including script evaluation, virtual shooting, and post-production special effects. Regulatory authorities have clarified the labeling obligations for AI-generated synthetic content, while the judiciary, through cases such as the “Joy of Life” “one-click AI video generation” case, has made it clear that platforms must establish and improve effective complaint and reporting mechanisms for intellectual property issues.
&nbsp;
<h2>Global Rise of Domestic IP: Micro-Short Dramas and Designer Toys as New Forces Going Overseas</h2>
China’s export value of television dramas has increased year by year, many films have been released and become hits overseas, and overseas downloads of micro-short dramas have increased by 1,157% year-on-year. Online literature and micro-short dramas have formed a virtuous ecological chain, promoting win-win development. In the designer toy sector, POP MART has become the best representative of “Created in China + Global IP”, enjoying great popularity in global markets. The report notes that IP going overseas requires multi-level layout and protection strategies for copyrights, trademarks, and industrial designs worldwide, as well as strengthened international cooperation.
&nbsp;
<h2>Accelerated Trend of Multi-Center Development, Enhanced Competitiveness of China’s Film and Television Industrial Chain</h2>
The global film and television industry landscape is shifting towards multipolarity. For works such as “Ne Zha 2”, more than 90% of the visual effects were completed by Chinese companies, demonstrating strong technological capabilities. The report analyzes that tariff policies and the rise of regional markets are driving the decentralization of production resources. Copyright owners need to strengthen protection of local and regional content copyrights, adopt diversified licensing and distribution models, and at the same time maintain connections with global markets through streaming media licensing and other means.
&nbsp;
<h2>Significant Results of “Dual-Track Protection” by Administrative and Judicial Authorities</h2>
Administrative authorities have closely coordinated online and offline efforts, combining routine law enforcement with special campaigns. The seventh special governance campaign for cinema film copyright protection resulted in the removal of 2.2957 million infringing links. Customs’ “Longteng Action”, “Blue Network Action” and “Clean Network Action” have strengthened the prevention and control of infringement risks.
&nbsp;
In terms of the judiciary, the report analyzes 520 publicly available film and television IP-related cases nationwide. Beijing, Guangdong and Shanghai together account for 49%, while Xinjiang, with 35 judgments, ranks among the top regions. New types of cases such as the determination of liability of short video platforms and “free-riding on IP” infringement have attracted particular attention.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Lusheng Booth</h2>
During the Shanghai International Film Festival, Lusheng set up a booth at the Film Market exhibition to introduce Lusheng’s entertainment law services and answer related inquiries for attendees from around the world.
The Film Market exhibition of this year’s festival runs from June 21 to 25. You are cordially invited to visit our booth for交流 and interaction, and to jointly discuss the development of China’s film and television industry.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/shabhlc4/img_4865617485649474549_cd3b56087c102865bf590f103aea8169.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=547&amp;height=410" alt="" width="547" height="410"> <img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/jl1fwqjy/img_3626175051978298902_f6d8b3dab48e5fc040410beb872ca9ff.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=544&amp;height=408" alt="" width="544" height="408">
Booth No. W1-17-2, 2nd Floor, West Hall 1, Shanghai Exhibition Center
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Report Request</h2>
The report has been made available on an online platform during the Shanghai International Film Festival.
Please scan the code to obtain the full electronic version.
*This material is only sent to corporate personnel. Thank you for your understanding.
&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/fdfgdcv0/img_5565906137665949476_32fb38df9f3d515fdad066531c91568d.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=422&amp;height=597" alt="" width="422" height="597">&nbsp; <img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/pxopslp1/img_8608592275207754010_de32bc7cd7ab0e342bf253b6f1192066.jpg" alt="" width="226" height="226">
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Lusheng Entertainment Law Services</h2>
Lusheng’s entertainment law services cover the entire life cycle of cultural and entertainment film and television brands, from IP creation and incubation, IP release and promotion, IP derivatives and development, to IP protection and enforcement.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/hm0dn1sn/img_7990846750532842639_71872e9d1b10edeb17e720d5e4de9cf3.png" alt="" width="357" height="162">
&nbsp;
We are committed to helping clients avoid intellectual property risks at all stages of film and entertainment projects, including contractual risks and infringement risks involved in project initiation and development, filming and production, publicity and distribution, and subsequent value realization, striving to provide comprehensive IP protection for film and entertainment projects and to maximize the commercial value of IP.
At the same time, Lusheng has achieved remarkable results in handling cutting-edge and complex cases with significant impact. More than 130 related cases handled by the firm have been selected as typical cases by courts, procuratorates and other professional institutions at various levels.

Lusheng issued China Film & TV IP White Paper at SIFF: AI works, IP export, multicenter focus

<a href="/who-we-are/sunny-su/">Sunny Su</a> shared insights on Trademark Enforcement Strategies in China at the CIOPORA Crop Section Fruit Meeting.&nbsp;<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/mznbh0zt/img_5800840567877705975_ciopora-06-1.png" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="421" height="237">

Sunny Su shared insights at the CIOPORA Crop Section Fruit Meeting

Recently, the leading domestic trademark legal data platform Mozhilun held a series of events titled “2024 Annual Practical Interpretation by Trademark Typical Case Handling Experts”, featuring carefully selected typical cases with industry-wide representativeness and inviting lead counsel to provide in-depth analysis of key points in case handling and legal practice.Heidi Feng a principal at Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to participate in this event and deliver a keynote speech.
In recent years, with the continuous strengthening of judicial protection of intellectual property rights, criminal enforcement has played an increasingly prominent role in trademark protection, and the practical paths reflected in relevant judicial interpretations and typical cases have become a focal point of attention within the industry. In this event, Principal Hendi Feng, taking as entry points the&nbsp;counterfeit “LEGO Education” service trademark case (the first criminal case nationwide involving counterfeiting of a service trademark, and a typical case of criminal protection of intellectual property rights by the Supreme People’s Court), as well as the criminal private prosecution case involving counterfeiting of the registered trademark in relation to “Magic Egg” toys handled by Lusheng (the first successful conviction nationwide in a criminal private prosecution case concerning intellectual property rights), and in conjunction with the latest judicial developments, conducted an in-depth discussion on the practical difficulties and enforcement strategies in criminal protection of trademarks, thereby providing professional guidance for enterprises in responding to trademark infringement risks and making effective use of criminal protection measures.
&nbsp;

Heidi Feng was invited to deliver a keynote at a trademark seminar

On 3 November, the British Embassy / UK Intellectual Property Office successfully held an online seminar themed "Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in China" during International Trade Week. Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution, delivered a keynote speech as a special guest on the topic of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law".
This forum focused on the protection and practical enforcement of intellectual property rights in China and the United Kingdom, particularly targeting enterprises that intend to enter or expand their presence in the Chinese market. The forum provided an in-depth analysis of the differences between China and the UK in terms of intellectual property protection, introduced specific measures for enterprises to protect intellectual property rights within China, and offered feasible solutions for dealing with disputes.
At the forum, Carol Wang shared in depth on the application and practice of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, with particular emphasis on the legal definitions and their boundaries in the field of intellectual property. Her speech covered the intersections and demarcations between the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and design patents, trademarks and copyrights, as well as its interface with criminal law. Drawing on her practical experience, she also put forward recommendations for enterprises on preventing and responding to unfair competition risks in their business operations, including strengthening the preservation of evidence of originality, improving internal compliance mechanisms, and making effective use of diversified enforcement avenues in the administrative, civil and criminal spheres.

Carol Wang Spoke at UK Embassy Trade Seminar

Today, the Beijing Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance (CAASA) and EU IP Key China successfully held the 2025 (8th) China-Europe Conference on Internet Intellectual Property Protection and Innovation in Beijing, bringing together numerous industry experts to explore cutting-edge developments in the field. Landy Jiang，Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution,&nbsp;was invited to attend and served as moderator in the roundtable discussion session, focusing on ownership and rights protection in the field of artificial intelligence.
Focusing on the protection, innovation, utilization and development of intellectual property, this conference concentrated on the integration of the internet, new technologies and intellectual property, explored the opportunities and challenges of international cooperation in the new era, and aimed to establish a benchmark for global IP cooperation. It sought to build a platform for international exchange and cooperation on intellectual property innovation and protection, promote communication and exchange in the field of anti-infringement and anti-counterfeiting between China and other countries, and foster a market environment of fair competition and a world-class international business environment.
Landy Jiang was invited to serve as moderator of the roundtable session, leading discussions with the guests on the topic of ownership and rights protection in artificial intelligence. Key issues covered included: the impact and challenges of AI technologies on the traditional intellectual property framework; copyright ownership of AIGC; corporate compliance issues in AI model development and application; the impact of AI technology applications on the content creation industry; and the risks of abuse of AIGC rights in cross-border transactions.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Conference Highlights</h2>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/amtlnj1v/img_4880335732633975399_f40742b2884a097e210bc7df862bd0cc.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=534&amp;height=355" alt="" width="534" height="355">
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/wdpdd1ec/img_7900352873551373091_de695bbb6a0f7d167549f2c44ad90f6b.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=518&amp;height=345" alt="" width="518" height="345">
From left to right in Figure 2: Landy Jiang, Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm;&nbsp;Zhang Dezhi, Deputy Secretary-General of the China Advertising Association; Yang Miao, Senior Director of Intellectual Property and Data Compliance of Kingsoft Cloud Network Technology Co., Ltd.; Lv Guoliang, Adviser and former Deputy Director of the China Office of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); former Director-General of the Department of International Cooperation of the China National Intellectual Property Administration; Guo Biao, President of the Greater China Region of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI); Yan Yunyun, Executive Deputy Director of the Zhejiang Cross-Border E-Commerce Intellectual Property Trade Early Warning Center
&nbsp;
During the conference, other members of the Lusheng team further engaged and interacted with participants, actively sharing practical experience and insights, jointly exploring trends in internet intellectual property protection, and seeking to explore cutting-edge pathways for the development of the industry.

Landy Jiang hosts the 2025 China‑EU IP roundtable on AI ownership and rights

At the 147th Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) held this year in San Diego, United States, the "China Case Law Seminar", one of the INTA China-themed series of events, was successfully convened on May 19 (local time), at which Carol Wang, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to deliver a keynote speech.
During the event, Carol Wang, under the theme of "Trademark Infringement, Limitations on Rights and Defenses", shared insights on trending topics involved in the determination of infringement, including packaging imitation, parallel imports, trade name use, similarity of goods categories, defense of lawful source, AI-related trademark infringement, keyword advertising, among others.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/aooekejg/img_1372748409955888885_957605f3eb091750f843dffdf9aa4077.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=533&amp;height=290" alt="" width="533" height="290">
On-site photo of the event
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/pz5nqqau/img_7864342439032339875_e6fc641608e5d09ce72915a6a9128d45.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=527&amp;height=297" alt="" width="527" height="297">
Second from the right: Carol Wang

Carol Wang shared insights at the Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA)

<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ispji1ga/img_7881299824638045103_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=647&amp;height=246" alt="" width="647" height="246">
On 10–11 April, the Third FMCG Intellectual Property Services Conference, hosted by the China Trademark Association, was successfully held in Beijing. The conference brought together numerous experts and scholars in the field of intellectual property, corporate representatives, and legal practitioners to jointly discuss cutting-edge issues and future trends in intellectual property protection in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector.
Several partners from Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner Rouse were invited to speak at the roundtable forum themed “New Challenges in Intellectual Property Protection under the Wave of Going Global”.
Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement of Lusheng Law Firm, together with Hatty Cui, General Manager of Rouse China and Lisa Yong, Partner of Rouse Indonesia, and Ma Lin, Legal Director of Yige Beauty Group, participated as panelists, sharing valuable experience and insights on intellectual property protection in Southeast Asia. Rouse Partner Yang Yi served as the moderator of the roundtable.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Guest Presentations</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/sufplmec/img_5415053110606540288_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=623&amp;height=188" alt="" width="623" height="188">
Lisa Yong, Partner, Rouse Indonesia Office
Lisa Yong first shared an overview of economic development and the intellectual property landscape in Southeast Asia. She noted that Southeast Asia has a population of nearly 700 million, of which more than 65% are under the age of 35, and a middle-class population of about 200 million that is expected to double to 400 million within five years. These figures indicate that the Southeast Asian market has enormous growth potential. However, there remain numerous challenges in the field of intellectual property. For example, in Vietnam, the trademark registration cycle is relatively long, taking approximately 2–3 years, and there is the phenomenon of “zombie trademarks”, whereby expired trademarks can still obstruct new applications for three years. In Indonesia, although the registration process is somewhat faster if no opposition is encountered, matters become more complex when disputes arise over trademark registration, especially for descriptive marks, and companies may even face high damages claims. In addition, enforcement mechanisms in some Southeast Asian countries are not yet fully developed, which adds further difficulties for outbound enterprises in protecting their intellectual property. She therefore recommended that companies entering the Southeast Asian market should fully understand local market characteristics and the legal environment, and plan their trademark registration and enforcement strategies in advance.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/mkllexwj/img_6558357220391657330_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=632&amp;height=188" alt="" width="632" height="188">
Hatty Cui，Principal, General Manager of China, China Head of Trade Marks &amp; Brands
Hatty Cui, drawing on her extensive experience, shared strategies for trademark registration and handling ownership disputes in Southeast Asia. She pointed out that enterprises face many challenges in trademark registration and enforcement in the region, such as significant differences in national systems, pronounced linguistic and cultural differences, and high enforcement costs. Accordingly, companies should gain an in-depth understanding of the legal systems of their target markets, particularly the specific requirements for trademark registration and enforcement. She then further analyzed the legal environment in certain Southeast Asian countries. For example, Indonesia’s trademark registration procedures are complex and costly, with stringent evidentiary requirements; whereas in Vietnam, trademark registration is largely an administrative process, and oppositions may extend the registration period to 3–5 years. In light of these differences, she advised companies to plan their budgets in advance and work closely with local specialist lawyers to ensure a smooth registration process while actively responding to potential oppositions and infringement issues. In addition, companies should continuously monitor market developments, promptly identify and address infringing activities, and avoid damage to brand value caused by inattention.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ee1l2q0r/img_1163388514283118778_image.png" alt="" width="643" height="185">
Ma Lin, Legal Director, Yige Beauty Group
Ma Lin, from a corporate perspective, shared her experience and insights on title confirmation and enforcement in Southeast Asia. She stated that when deploying overseas, enterprises need to clarify their overall approach and objectives regarding intellectual property issues, so as to allocate resources, select excellent partners, and jointly formulate response strategies. She recommended that companies attach importance to full life-cycle management of intellectual property, forming a complete protection chain from trademark filing to monitoring and then to responding to infringement, and that close internal communication be maintained to ensure that strategies are aligned with practical needs. In addition, enterprises should actively cooperate with enforcement authorities and provide necessary support to enhance enforcement effectiveness.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/egziwn0o/img_8923809630305825662_image.png" alt="" width="625" height="175">
Sophia Hou Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement， Lusheng Law Firm
Drawing on her extensive case-handling experience, Sophia Hou&nbsp;provided practical recommendations for enterprises seeking to enforce their intellectual property rights in Southeast Asia. She pointed out that, when selecting enforcement options, companies need to comprehensively consider factors such as the volume of cases, processing speed, the effectiveness of cease-and-desist letters, and customs enforcement, and set expectations reasonably. For example, work efficiency in Southeast Asian countries is relatively low and case-handling cycles are long, so companies need to have realistic expectations regarding enforcement timelines. She also noted that cease-and-desist letters are an effective means of enforcement in Southeast Asia and are generally respected by local businesses. She therefore suggested that enterprises make full use of this feature and seek to resolve disputes with infringers through cease-and-desist letters. In addition, companies should cooperate with local business units and trusted law firms, pay close attention to legal and political developments, and adjust their protection strategies in a timely manner to adapt to the complex local legal environment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Moderator’s Summary</h2>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ptcfy4lj/img_1015250031711488885_image.png" alt="" width="578" height="159">
Amanda Yang，Principal, Rouse
Amanda Yang, in her capacity as moderator, concluded that although there remain many issues in the intellectual property legal environment in Southeast Asia, the market potential is enormous and the legal systems are continuously improving, making the region worthy of close attention by enterprises. She recommended that, in the course of going global, companies should gain a comprehensive understanding of local legal systems, work closely with local lawyers, and actively respond to various challenges. Furthermore, enterprises should attach great importance to the management and protection of intellectual property, enhance their own competitiveness, actively exercise their rights, and take effective action to safeguard their legitimate interests.
As Chinese enterprises accelerate their pace of going global, the importance of intellectual property protection is becoming increasingly prominent. As a key component of the conference, this roundtable forum provided participants with rich information and experience sharing on intellectual property protection in Southeast Asia, helping enterprises better respond to new challenges and seize development opportunities amid the wave of going global.

New challenges in IP protection amid going-global: how to respond

On March 14, the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Hangzhou Customs successfully held a practical exchange seminar on customs intellectual property protection. Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement of Lusheng Law Firm, was invited to attend the event, where she gathered with representatives from Hangzhou Customs, brand right holders and professionals in the field of intellectual property to jointly discuss customs intellectual property protection practices and trends in law enforcement, and to conduct in-depth exchanges on the issues and challenges faced by brand right holders in the course of enforcement and protection.
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/bosdsryz/img_9043137711033359878_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=731&amp;height=367" alt="" width="731" height="367">
Event Site
(Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement of Lusheng Law Firm: sixth from the left in the first photo, third from the left in the second photo)
The successful convening of this exchange seminar has not only laid a solid foundation for further deepening cooperation between INTA and Hangzhou Customs, but has also built an efficient channel of collaboration among international organizations, brand right holders and law enforcement authorities, significantly advancing international exchange and cooperation in the field of intellectual property protection.

Sophia Hou attended the INTA–Hangzhou Customs IP Practice Seminar

On 22–23 October, the International Symposium on Trade Secret Protection, hosted by the State Administration for Market Regulation and co-organized by Tsinghua University and other institutions, was held in Guangzhou. Approximately 150 participants attended the symposium, including representatives from intellectual property authorities and diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries as well as the European Union, representatives of international organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Licensing Executives Society International, officials from relevant domestic government departments, representatives of local market regulation authorities, relevant industry associations, experts and scholars, and members of the business community.
&nbsp;
Landy Jiang, Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution of Lusheng Law Firm, Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement of Lusheng Law Firm, together with Terry Lu of Lusheng were invited to attend the symposium and engaged in interactive exchanges with other participants on trends in trade secret protection. James Godefroy (Gao Zhanyuan), Partner at Rouse International and Deputy Global Head of Enforcement, was also invited to deliver a keynote presentation at the sub-forum on "Corporate Data and Trade Secret Protection" hosted by the School of Law of Tsinghua University.
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/0y4jmeq5/img_9219584696464761691_image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=607&amp;height=273" alt="" width="607" height="273">
&nbsp;
The symposium aimed to establish an international platform for exchange in the field of trade secret protection. Participants conducted in-depth discussions on topics such as "Trade Secret Protection and Industrial Innovation and Development," "Corporate Data and Trade Secret Protection," and "Cooperation on Trade Secret Protection in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area," thereby injecting impetus into the development of trade secret protection under the new circumstances.
At the sub-forum on "Corporate Data and Trade Secret Protection," James delivered an in-depth presentation on the topic of "Designing Effective Trade Secret Programs," drawing primarily on joint research conducted by Lusheng Law Firm, Rouse International and its consulting affiliate Konsent. In this research, Landy Jiang and Terry Lu participated extensively as representatives of Lusheng. The relevant research findings are available in the article "Establishing an Effective Trade Secret Protection System."
&nbsp;
Read the full text of the sub-forum
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5MzkyNzU1OA==&amp;mid=2649663224&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=edb2d78cd938b84d10832c6aa3dc8862&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" class="normal_text_link mp_article_text_link" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">“International Symposium on Trade Secret Protection” Successfully Held in Guangzhou</a> (Source: Tsinghua Intellectual Property)

Landy Jiang and Sophia Hou attended an international trade secret protection seminar

Against the backdrop of the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies and major changes in the global landscape, the academic symposium “The Age of Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges for Intellectual Property,” organized by the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of Tsinghua University School of Law, was successfully held on 26 November 2024 at the Liao Kaiyuan Building of Tsinghua University.
Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner of Lusheng Law Firm, and Su Yanhong, Head of Digital and Commercial Law Practice, were invited by Tsinghua University to attend the conference and participate in the discussions, during which Ms. Jiang delivered a keynote presentation on copyright issues relating to AIGC.
The conference adopted a hybrid online and offline format and invited practitioners in the field of intellectual property, including senior judges from various courts and experts and leaders from the China Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeiting Innovation Strategic Alliance (CAASA), partners from Rouse International, aera and Lusheng Law Firm, as well as relevant executives and legal counsel from numerous AI enterprises in China and abroad. The participants presented the latest developments in AI regulation in China, the European Union and Southeast Asia, and engaged in in-depth dialogue on intellectual property issues related to artificial intelligence.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/ponlezf1/img_4243544486952266043_清华-1.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=730&amp;height=401" alt="" width="730" height="401">
&nbsp;
<h2>Opening Session</h2>
The conference was moderated by Dr. Hong Yan, Secretary-General of the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of Tsinghua University School of Law. In the opening session, Secretary-General Hong extended a warm welcome to all guests and expressed the hope that in-depth exchanges among the participants would spark intellectual inspiration and promote the development of intellectual property practice and research.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/up2fppz2/img_2176575229648111021_清华-2.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=730&amp;height=464" alt="" width="730" height="464">
Dr. Hong Yan, Secretary-General of the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of Tsinghua University School of Law
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Thematic Session – Decoding Artificial Intelligence Patents: Strategies for Success in a Complex Landscape</h2>
The theme of the first part of the conference was “Decoding Artificial Intelligence Patents: Strategies for Success in a Complex Landscape.” Dr. Roswall delivered an excellent presentation entitled “Machine Learning and Simulation: European Practice and Typical Cases.” Dr. Roswall introduced the European patent examination rules and specific cases in the field of machine learning and compared them with China’s patent examination rules in AI-related fields. Finally, Dr. Roswall summarized the key points of European patent drafting and provided practical recommendations.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/zbelaz2r/img_8342772913288573671_清华-3.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=730&amp;height=452" alt="" width="730" height="452">
aera Partner Dr. Hanane Fathi Roswall
&nbsp;
During the free discussion session, Professor Cui Guobin, Director of the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of Tsinghua University School of Law, engaged in an exchange with Dr. Roswall on the issue of “how to identify the specific technical field” from the perspective of patentability. Using medical diagnostic AI and automotive AI autonomous driving recognition technologies as examples, Dr. Roswall pointed out that the key to resolving this issue lies in understanding and sorting out the client’s technology. To this end, Dr. Roswall recommended identifying specific application scenarios through a process of progressive refinement and, at the same time, clarifying the technical problem and technical field through concretization such as combining with hardware, so as to meet the requirements of patentability. Corporate representatives noted that Chinese enterprises are currently concerned not only with patent applications, but also with patent value and rights protection. In the AI field, enterprises are more focused on AI patent applications at the application layer and hope that academia can provide more guidance for practice.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/n5qcuhec/img_5980782037734237478_清华-4.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=730&amp;height=513" alt="" width="730" height="513">
Professor Cui Guobin, Director of the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of Tsinghua University School of Law
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2>Thematic Session – Exploring Artificial Intelligence Copyright: A Comparative Study of National Rules and Practices</h2>
The theme of the second part of the conference was “Exploring Artificial Intelligence Copyright: A Comparative Study of National Rules and Practices.” First, Ms. Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner of Lusheng Law Firm, delivered a presentation entitled “Exploring Artificial Intelligence Copyright and Data Compliance Issues: A Comparative Study of National Rules and Practices,” in which she shared her views on the copyrightability of AI-generated content (AIGC), the infringement risks and platform liability associated with AIGC, issues relating to data acquisition and use, and the fair use defense in data training. Subsequently, Attorney Zhou Jianhua delivered a report entitled “Data Collection for Machine Learning: A Southeast Asian Perspective.” Starting from the obstacles to obtaining training data, Attorney Zhou discussed issues relating to terms of use, digital rights management information, technological protection measures and anti-crawling measures in data collection, and introduced relevant provisions and judicial cases in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/wrmoyci3/img_2329002313519756347_清华-5.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=730&amp;height=486" alt="" width="730" height="486">
From left: Ms. Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner of Lusheng Law Firm; Attorney Zhou Jianhua, Partner of Rouse International
&nbsp;
During the free discussion session, Chen Jinchuan, former Vice President and Judge of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, briefly analyzed existing cases related to the copyrightability of AIGC. He considered that the existing judgments either do not provide a detailed discussion of the issue of AIGC copyrightability, or exhibit a disconnect between legal reasoning and the facts.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/erieexay/img_168810755156218350_清华-6.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=731&amp;height=488" alt="" width="731" height="488">
Chen Jinchuan, former Vice President and Judge of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court
&nbsp;
Associate Professor Jiang Ge of Tsinghua University School of Law was of the view that, at the rights determination stage, the current originality standard does not impose a high requirement on user contribution, and AIGC only needs to possess a literary or artistic appearance and be sufficiently distinct from existing works and public domain content; otherwise, it would give rise to excessively high social costs in distinguishing between high-contribution and low-contribution AIGC. At the infringement stage, verbatim copying of AIGC should be found to constitute infringement, while claims going beyond verbatim copying require the plaintiff to provide evidence of further contribution.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/iwsn5mck/img_8665056111506285772_清华-7.jpg?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=729&amp;height=529" alt="" width="729" height="529">
Associate Professor Jiang Ge, Tsinghua University School of Law
&nbsp;
Representatives from multiple enterprises also shared their views on AIGC compliance and infringement issues, including how platforms should handle “notice-and-takedown” requests based on AIGC, how content providers and AI model developers can achieve win-win outcomes through cooperation, and whether platform liability is applicable in AIGC scenarios. Attorney Su Yanhong, Head of Digital and Commercial Law Practice at Lusheng Law Firm, expressed her views based on her practical experience. Professor Cui Guobin, Attorney Jiang Nandi and Attorney Zhou Jianhua also analyzed the issues from a professional perspective.
Through the enthusiastic discussions among the participants, the conference not only deepened understanding of the current situation and future development trends in the field of artificial intelligence, but also injected new vitality into multi-party exchanges and cooperation in the field of intellectual property. The academic symposium “The Age of Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges for Intellectual Property,” organized by the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of Tsinghua University School of Law, concluded successfully.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Profiles of Lusheng Speakers</h2>
Jiang Nandi
Managing Partner; Co-Head of Dispute Resolution Practice
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Jiang Nandi has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property legal practice. She provides clients with comprehensive and in-depth services in IP strategy and global portfolio management and is adept at handling rights protection and litigation matters covering trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade names, domain names and unfair competition. She is highly trusted by numerous well-known multinational corporations and industry-leading enterprises, whose businesses span fast-moving consumer goods, luxury goods, technology and the internet, automotive, entertainment, education and publishing, among others. Ms. Jiang has represented a number of cases of landmark significance in China’s judicial practice, many of which have been recognized by courts and industry institutions, including “Annual Typical IP Cases” selected by the Supreme People’s Court and “Deals of the Year” selected by China Business Law Journal. Ms. Jiang has been recommended by many international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including The Legal 500, Managing IP, Benchmark Litigation and World Trademark Review, and has received honors such as “IPHouse: Top 50 Outstanding IP Lawyers in China.”
Email: ljiang@lushenglawyers.com&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Su Yanhong
Head of Digital Law and Commercial Law Practice
Lusheng Law Firm
Su Yanhong has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and legal practice and has long served numerous well-known multinational companies across industries including media and publishing, film and television entertainment, technology, advertising, the internet, fast-moving consumer goods and agriculture. She focuses on commercial law areas related to intellectual property, including technology import and export, IP assignment and licensing, franchising, non-compete arrangements and commercialization. She also provides international clients with legal advice on cross-border e-commerce and social media platforms and offers legal opinions on private traffic, marketing, endorsements and advertising compliance. At the same time, she closely follows the latest developments in China’s data protection and compliance regulation and provides specialized legal services relating to cybersecurity, personal data protection, compliance strategies and cross-border data transfers. Cases she has handled have been recognized as “Deals of the Year” by China Business Law Journal. In addition, she participated in the drafting of China’s first set of guidelines on intellectual property clauses in foreign-related economic and trade contracts, the Guidelines on Intellectual Property Clauses in Foreign Economic and Trade Cooperation Contracts.
Email: ssu@lushenglawyers.com

Landy Jiang and Sunny Su attended Tsinghua AI-IP forum and gave keynote talks

Recently, the well-known U.S. legal content aggregation platform Mondaq announced the list of winners of the 2026 Spring Thought Leadership Awards. The Awards aim to recognize authors of platform articles in specific practice areas that have attracted the highest readership over the past six months. Jiang Nandi, Managing Partner and Co-Head of Dispute Resolution, Wang Huaizhang, Head of Patent Practice, and Lu Chang, Patent Attorney and Lawyer of Lusheng Law Firm have received the award in the field of intellectual property.
&nbsp;
2026 Spring
Mondaq Thought Leadership Awards
Intellectual Property - Top 2
&nbsp;
<h2>Award-Winning Article</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.mondaq.com/china/patent/1709026/中国标准必要专利-sep-实践面临世界贸易组织wto挑战">Chinese Standard-Essential Patents (SEP) Practice Facing Challenges from the World Trade Organization (WTO)</a></li>
</ul>
This article was jointly authored by the above-mentioned Lusheng authors together with members of the Rouse team, Lusheng’s strategic cooperation partner.
&nbsp;
<h2>Mondaq Thought Leadership Awards</h2>
Mondaq is a well-known U.S. legal content aggregation platform that provides users with insights from articles authored by professional legal service institutions and experts worldwide. Mondaq has established the Thought Leadership Awards to recognize authors and co-authors of platform articles in specific practice areas that have attracted the highest readership over the past six months. The Awards are announced each year in the autumn and spring.

Landy Jiang, Eddie Wang and Terry Lu win the 2026 Mondaq Spring Award

In order to fully leverage the think tank resources and advantages of intellectual property experts in promoting the city’s innovative development and optimizing its business environment, and to effectively enhance the efficiency and level of intellectual property work in Xiangyang City, the Xiangyang Municipal Intellectual Property Administration issued the “Notice on Public Solicitation of Experts for the Intellectual Property Expert Database,” openly soliciting experts in intellectual property-related fields from the public. The list of selected experts was released recently, and Sophia Hou, Director of the Guangzhou Branch of Lusheng Law Firm and Head of Rights Protection Practice, has been honorably selected.

Sophia Hou has been selected for the Expert in Xiangyang IP Oversea Dispute Resolution Expert Directory

Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Law Research Association and IP Finance jointly released the list of the “Case-based IP Interpretation” Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases of 2025. The case concerning infringement of the plant new variety right in respect of the Envy (Envy) apple, handled by Lusheng Law Firm on behalf of ENZAFruit, was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
Lusheng Law Firm assisted ENZAFruit in obtaining a landmark victory in the final judgment rendered by the Supreme People’s Court: the first-instance judgment was upheld, and a relatively high amount of damages was awarded in civil cases concerning infringement of new plant varieties in China—up to RMB 3.3 million.
During the evidence collection process, Lusheng conducted extensive on-site evidence preservation in multiple orchards across China, covering both the seedling planting season and the fruit harvesting season. Ultimately, Lusheng collected and completed DNA analysis and testing of the necessary propagating materials, thereby proving the fact of infringement and submitting the results to the court. In the first instance, the Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province, based on the defendants’ bad faith and serious infringing acts, decided to calculate punitive damages at twice the amount of the illegal income generated by the infringing acts.
In the final judgment of this case, the Supreme People’s Court upheld the prior decision rendered by the court of first instance and held that the defendants’ illegal planting and sale of plant materials of the Scilate variety and apples harvested from such illegal materials constituted a serious infringement of ENZAFruit’s intellectual property rights. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court ordered the infringers to immediately cease all infringing acts, remove the propagating materials, and subject them to inactivation treatment, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
1. The final damages of RMB 3.3 million awarded in this case are indeed rare in civil cases involving infringement of new varieties of asexually reproduced plants in China. According to the results disclosed in the 2023 law enforcement inspection of the Seed Law conducted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the average amount of damages in such cases is approximately RMB 425,000, far lower than the amount awarded in this case.
2. The holder of the variety right in this case is a New Zealand enterprise, and the judgment reflects the people’s courts’ adherence to the principle of equal protection in accordance with the law. This case treats the act of selling harvested materials as a natural extension of the production and propagation of propagating materials, and, where the infringer primarily obtains illegal profits through the sale of harvested materials, takes the profits from the sale of such harvested materials as the basis for determining the amount of damages. This provides an important reference for the calculation of damages in similar subsequent cases and is of landmark significance, further strengthening the comprehensive protection of variety right holders. The injunctive measure supported in this case—namely, requiring the infringer to cease infringement by cutting off the infringing propagating scions and grafting other non-infringing variety scions—fully takes into account the characteristics of perennial asexually reproduced crops, thereby fully protecting the interests of the variety right holder while reasonably balancing the restoration of agricultural production and the avoidance of resource waste. It constitutes a beneficial innovation and exploration in refining the forms of injunctive relief for variety rights.

Lusheng’s case was selected as a 2025 Case Talk IP top ten IP model case

Congratulations to our team for being shortlisted in the " Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year: East China - Non Local" category of the 2026 ALB China Regional Law Awards: East China.
&nbsp;
<h2 class="MsoNormal">ALB China Regional Law Awards 2026: East China</h2>
The ALB China Regional Law Awards: East China focuses on the five provinces and one municipality in the region – Shandong, Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, and Shanghai – and aims to honor top‑tier law firms, in‑house legal teams, and individuals that demonstrate exceptional strength in the East China legal market.

Lusheng shortlisted in 2026 ALB China Regional Law Awards: East China

Congratulations to ​Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ACoAAAHySFQBcc3Ic1IRQVqUEF6GXHB3pUreK0k" target="_self" class="app-aware-link" data-test-app-aware-link=""></a>Carol Wang for being selected by Managing IP to appear in&nbsp;Top 250 Women in IP 2026 List.
&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/1tbdrekn/carol-wang.webp?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=460&amp;height=259" alt="" width="460" height="259">
&nbsp;
<h2>Managing Intellectual Property</h2>
Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) provides world-leading IP news, information, and analytical coverage, delivering comprehensive reporting on intellectual property legal developments with exceptional recognition and authority in the industry. Each year, it conducts extensive and in-depth surveys of IP practitioners across more than 80 countries and regions, involving thousands of respondents. The evaluation process is rigorous and strict, with fair and impartial assessment standards, making it a globally comprehensive and authoritative IP guide.
The Top 250 Women in IP ranking focuses on female professionals in the IP industry, recognizing senior IP practitioners who consistently make outstanding contributions to their clients and organizations.

Carol Wang has been selected in Top 250 Women in IP 2026 by Managing IP

The Suqian Intellectual Property Protection Center has carried out the work of soliciting and selecting experts for the Suqian Expert Database for Guidance on Responding to Overseas Intellectual Property Disputes, with the aim of further enhancing the capability of innovation entities in preventing and responding to overseas intellectual property disputes, and improving the working mechanism for guidance on responding to overseas intellectual property disputes. The list of experts has recently been released, and Sophia Hou, Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement&nbsp;of Lusheng Law Firm, has been honorably selected.
&nbsp;

Sophia Hou has been selected for the Expert in Suqian (Jiangsu province) IP Oversea Dispute Resolution Expert Directory

In order to further enhance enterprises’ capabilities in preventing and controlling overseas intellectual property risks and responding to disputes in the course of “going global,” and to better safeguard and support enterprises in their “going global” efforts, the Heze Municipal Administration for Market Regulation launched the first round of selection of overseas intellectual property dispute response guidance experts in the first quarter of 2026. The list of experts was recently released, and Lusheng Law Firm Managing Partner of Guangzhou Office, China Head of Enforcement Sophia Hou&nbsp;has been honorably selected.

Sophia Hou has been included in Heze (Shandong province) IP Oversea Dispute Resolution Expert Directory

We are pleased to announce that Mi Li, Principal,&nbsp;Patent Director of Lusheng Law Firm,&nbsp;has been consecutively named to the The World's Leading IP Strategists&nbsp;ranking by &nbsp;IAM Strategy 300.
&nbsp;
<h2 class="ds-markdown-paragraph">IAM Strategy 300 IAM Global IP Strategist 300</h2>
IAM is an IP media platform under Law Business Research, a well-known international media group, focusing on providing global news, analysis, and data on intellectual property management. Through its extensive regular special reports, panel reports, and surveys, it not only helps lawyers and in-house counsel stay abreast of important global issues and strategies and maintain critical insights into the market landscape, but also serves as a trusted source of important information for industry professionals.
The IAM Strategy 300 list aims to identify experts worldwide who have made outstanding contributions to IP value creation, strategic planning, and commercial application. Candidates for this list undergo rigorous industry research, third-party recommendations, and comprehensive evaluation by the IAM editorial team. The selection criteria include not only professional competence and industry experience, but also comprehensive performance in promoting IP commercialisation, optimising patent portfolio management, and handling complex disputes and cross-border matters. Experts who make it onto the list all enjoy a broad reputation in the field of international IP management and strategy, and are capable of providing clients with forward-looking and commercially valuable IP solutions.

Mi Li has been listed in IAM Strategy 300 2026

We are delighted that Lusheng Law Firm's Principal,Patent Director Mi Li, has been named to the 2026 WIPR Leaders (China)&nbsp; ranking by World IP Review (WIPR).
&nbsp;
<h2 class="ds-markdown-paragraph">World IP Review: WIPR Leaders</h2>
WIPR is one of the leading professional media outlets in the international intellectual property field, providing the latest news and cutting-edge professional information on trademarks, patents, and copyrights. It is essential reading for brand owners and legal practitioners. WIPR Leaders (Global Leaders) is an authoritative one-stop guide to intellectual property experts, featuring the most outstanding lawyers worldwide. Its annual list is compiled through a rigorous selection process by the research team, who carefully evaluate nominated attorneys based on factors including their practice history, industry specialisation, key cases, and legal academic contributions.

Mi Li has been listed in WIPR Leaders 2026

We are delighted to announce that Lusheng has been recognized in the 2026 China Business Law Awards for excellence in IP-Copyright (China Domestic) and IP-Trademark&nbsp;(China Domestic).
&nbsp;
<h2 data-start="52" data-end="650">China Business Law Awards</h2>
The China Business Law Awards, presented by China Business Law Journal, are based on nominations and feedback provided by corporate counsel, executives, and legal professionals from both Chinese and international companies with a focus on the China market.To determine the winning law firms and legal service providers, China Business Law Journal conducted extensive research into client satisfaction. In addition to carefully considering the nominations and recommendations received, the journal also reviewed outstanding deals, cases, and other notable achievements from the past year.

Lusheng recognized in China Business Law Awards 2026

We are honored that Lusheng has been recognized in Copyright/TradeMark and Patent categories at the 2026 ALB China Awards.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Asian Legal Business：</h2>
Asian Legal Business (“ALB”), a premium legal publication under Thomson Reuters, is one of the world’s most influential legal media outlets. It is dedicated to providing clients and readers with cutting-edge legal and business insights, as well as professional law firm rankings. Based on law firm submissions and in-depth editorial research, ALB evaluates firms on factors such as the complexity of their work and overall growth trajectory, and recognizes the leading law firms in the intellectual property field across Asia. It is regarded as one of the most authoritative legal rankings in China and throughout Asia.

Lusheng recognized in two categories at the 2026 ALB China Awards

We are delighted to share that Lusheng has received eight awards on 2026 "Managing IP IP Stars" List. We are particularly pleased to see six of our Principals have been recognised for their skills and achievements.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Lusheng Recognized</h2>
Copyright - domestic firms
&nbsp;
Patent disputes - domestic firms
&nbsp;
Trade mark disputes - domestic firms
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Ranked Lawyers</h2>
Alice Hou &nbsp;Rising Star (China) - MIP IP Stars
&nbsp;&nbsp;
Landy Jiang&nbsp; Trade Mark Star (China) - MIP IP Stars
&nbsp;&nbsp;
Mi Li&nbsp; Patent Star (China) - MIP IP Stars
&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sharon Qiao&nbsp; Trade Mark Star (China)&nbsp;；Patent Star (China) - MIP IP Stars
&nbsp;
Carol Wang&nbsp; Trade Mark Star (China)&nbsp;；Patent Star (China)；The Top 250 Women in IP &nbsp;- MIP IP Stars
&nbsp;
August Zhang&nbsp; Trade Mark Star (China) - MIP IP Stars

Lusheng once again recognized by the Managing IP: IP STARS rankings, with multiple leading individuals honored

Recently, the internationally authoritative legal rating agency Benchmark Litigation released its 2026 Benchmark Litigation China (Dispute Resolution) rankings. Leveraging its outstanding service capabilities and industry reputation, Lusheng Law Firm, along with its Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution Landy Jiang, and Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution Carol Wang, have respectively retained their positions on the rankings for Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong Province in the Intellectual Property category, as well as being recognized as "Litigation Star in IP"
&nbsp;
<h2>Benchmark Litigation</h2>
Benchmark Litigation, an internationally authoritative legal rating agency under the Euromoney Group, publishes one of the most authoritative annual guides in the field of dispute resolution. The research results for the Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific guide are derived from extensive interviews conducted by its research team with dispute resolution experts, litigation lawyers, and clients. Additionally, the evaluation comprehensively considers law firms' case performance during the research period, client feedback, as well as professional opinions from legal practitioners in the relevant practice areas and jurisdictions.

Lusheng recognized in 2026 Benchmark Litigation China

Lisa Lin

On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Guangdong Trademark Association, the Guangdong Trademark Association released the “Light of the Bay Area” TOP 30 Typical Cases of Trademark Protection over the Past 30 Years. The case “A Certain International Luxury Brand v. A Certain Individual over Trademark Infringement,” represented by Lusheng Law Firm, was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
The client is the right holder of an internationally renowned jewelry and watch brand. Its trademark has been repeatedly recognized as a well-known trademark by the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce and by effective court judgments, and enjoys a very high reputation. Previously, the client had filed a lawsuit against Zhang XX for selling watches infringing its trademark rights, and the parties reached a settlement agreement. Zhang XX undertook to cease the infringement, destroy the infringing products in stock, pay compensation to the client, and expressly promised that, should he commit infringement again, he would pay punitive damages. However, Zhang XX failed to honor his commitments. Instead, he diverted traffic from the original infringing WeChat store of the client to multiple WeChat accounts of himself and his affiliates, and set up new WeChat stores to continue selling infringing watches.
Lusheng Law Firm, acting for the client, filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that Zhang XX be ordered to cease the infringement and that punitive damages be applied, and claiming compensation for the client’s economic losses and reasonable expenses.
The effective judgment of the Yuexiu District People’s Court of Guangzhou Municipality held that the trademark involved in the case enjoys a relatively high degree of reputation. After the settlement in the previous litigation, Zhang XX did not cease his infringing acts but continued to seek illegal profits, thereby constituting repeated infringement. He also used WeChat accounts of affiliated persons to sell infringing watches, with the intention of evading liability for infringement. His subjective intent was manifestly malicious, and the circumstances of infringement were serious, so punitive damages should be applied. The court, in accordance with the law, obtained the transaction details of Zhang XX, calculated his sales amount during the period of infringement, and then, based on the average profit rate of the same industry, determined his infringing profits as the base amount for punitive damages, applying double punitive damages. The court ordered Zhang XX to compensate Company K for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses in an amount exceeding RMB 720,000.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>1. Successfully Overcoming Obstacles to the Application of Punitive Damages and Establishing a Benchmark Judgment on “Concealed Infringement after Settlement”</h3>
In this case, by applying for the retrieval of transaction records of multiple accounts of Zhang XX and submitting similar case judgments as corroboration, our firm, on the basis of fully considering the well-known status of the trademark involved, effectively proved his subjective malice in repeated infringement and the scale of the infringement. In response to the defenses raised by Zhang XX, such as “fake transactions” and “payments unrelated to the infringement,” our firm, through professional evidence analysis, demonstrated that his receipts mainly originated from the sale of infringing products.
The court ultimately applied the rule on obstruction of evidence, taking the retrieved payment records as the base, and, with reference to the profit rate of the same industry, applied double punitive damages. This effectively resolved the practical difficulty in judicial practice of determining the base amount for punitive damages. This innovative practice not only provides a replicable rights protection path for similar cases, but also highlights the judicial orientation of the courts in strictly punishing concealed repeated infringement.
<h3>2. Innovating an Electronic Data Evidence Collection Model to Address the Problem of Concealed Infringement</h3>
In response to the infringer’s adoption of new concealed infringement methods, such as using multiple WeChat accounts and Alipay accounts of others to receive payments, this case, by applying to the court for the retrieval of full-chain electronic transaction records, constructed a complete evidentiary chain of infringing profits, thereby providing a replicable rights protection solution for electronic data evidence collection and damages calculation in similar cases.
<h3>3. Improving the Full-Chain Judicial Safeguard for the Protection of Well-Known Trademarks</h3>
As a successful rights protection case of an internationally renowned luxury brand, this case, from the supervision of the performance of the settlement agreement to the crackdown on new infringing acts, has formed a closed-loop protection model of “discovery–settlement–repeated infringement–punishment,” significantly enhancing the rights holder’s enforcement efficiency and providing a demonstrative reference for the protection of intellectual property rights of similar luxury brands in China.

Lusheng’s case was selected as a Bay Area 30-year Top 30 trademark protection case

Recently,&nbsp;the internationally renowned IP media outlet Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) published its "IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals 2026" rankings. Lusheng Law Firm, along with its Senior Partner Sharon Qiao, Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution Carol Wang, Honorary Managing Partner of Shanghai Office Ling Jin, and Principal, Patent Director Mi Li, have once again been included in the rankings. Additionally, Eddie Wang, Greater China Head of Patents, has been newly selected this year.
&nbsp;
<h2>IAM Patent 1000:</h2>
<h2>The World’s Leading Patent Professional</h2>
&nbsp;
IAM is an IP media platform under the globally recognized Legal Business Research group, dedicated to providing global news, analysis, and data on IP management. Through a wide range of regular special reports, panel reports, and surveys, IAM not only helps lawyers and in-house counsel stay abreast of critical global issues and strategies, maintaining key insights into market dynamics, but also serves as a trusted and vital source of information for industry professionals. The&nbsp;IAM Patent 1000&nbsp;focuses specifically on the patent field, conducting in-depth research and objective evaluations of professionals and law firms across various specialized patent practice areas in key global jurisdictions, thereby recommending the most outstanding firms and practitioners to professionals worldwide.

Lusheng recognized in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 list

Jingru Li

Leonie Wei

Real Yu

Ivy Xu

Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration released the “Typical Cases of Administrative Protection of Intellectual Property Rights for the Year 2025”. The case titled “Unauthorized Use of the Geographical Indication Product Name ‘Scotch Whisky’” handled by Lusheng Law Firm on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Overview of the Case</h2>
The Scotch Whisky Association (the “Association”) discovered that a certain trading company in Shanghai had, in the course of advertising, selling, product marking and labeling of its whisky products, used the geographical indication product name “Scotch Whisky” without authorization, and that the labeling content did not comply with the technical specifications for the geographical indication product.
Lusheng Law Firm, acting on behalf of the Association, filed an administrative complaint with the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Songjiang District, Shanghai, requesting that the authority, in accordance with the law, investigate and deal with the acts of the party concerned in illegally using the geographical indication product name and in non-compliant labeling, order cessation of the unlawful acts, confiscate the products involved and the illegal gains, and impose fines.
During the handling of the case, the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Songjiang District, Shanghai conducted a comprehensive verification of the entire chain of facts concerning product origin, labeling, bottling processes and market circulation. With respect to difficult issues concerning the application of law to overseas bottling and bonded zone bottling, the authority carried out professional review and legal analysis strictly based on the quality control standards for geographical indication products, and ultimately, in accordance with the law, imposed administrative penalties such as confiscation of the products involved and fines, while at the same time urging rectification of relevant compliance loopholes in business operations, thereby sending a clear regulatory signal to the market regarding the standardized use of geographical indication product names and the strict fulfillment of label compliance responsibilities.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>1. Basing on the Place-of-Origin Criteria for Geographical Indications to Resolve New Types of Enforcement Disputes</h3>
This case closely focuses on the core requirement of place of origin in the protection of geographical indications, and accurately addresses new types of industry disputes such as overseas bottling and bonded zone bottling, clearly defining that the lawful use of a geographical indication product name must strictly follow the corresponding technical standards and management specifications. In the course of handling the case, the Lusheng team, on behalf of the Association, sorted out and submitted the key points of the technical requirements for the geographical indication “Scotch Whisky”, and put forward legal analyses and evidentiary support regarding the disputed aspects, thereby assisting in clarifying the determination of types of geographical indication infringements and the legal basis for application in complex scenarios.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. Focusing on Quality and Label Compliance Control to Create a Replicable Model for Administrative Protection</h3>
The law enforcement authority, taking the quality requirements for geographical indication products as the core basis, conducted a comprehensive fact-finding and assessment of legal application, thereby achieving precise characterization of the unlawful use acts. This case provides referential experience for the application of discretionary standards in administrative protection of geographical indications and the improvement of case-handling procedures, which is conducive to further enhancing the professionalism and standardization of administrative protection work for geographical indications, and to fostering a fair and orderly business environment and a sound ecosystem for intellectual property protection. In this case, the Lusheng team, in light of the specific circumstances, actively assisted the law enforcement authority in making more refined determinations and dispositions of the relevant unlawful facts, thereby contributing to strengthening compliance warnings to business operators and providing guidance to the industry.

Lusheng’s case was selected as an NIPA 2025 IP administrative protection model case

Recently, the Suzhou courts released the “Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for the Year 2025.” The case concerning the unfair competition dispute over the shape and trade dress of the “Tripp Trapp” growing chair, handled by Lusheng Law Firm on behalf of Stokke, was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
Stokke’s Tripp Trapp growing chair, due to its unique design, was selected by Fortune magazine as one of the “100 Great Modern Designs of the World.” Its structure was the subject of a U.S. patent application in 1975, and the protection period has now expired. However, Stokke discovered that a certain children’s home products company was selling growing chairs in its online store whose shape and configuration were highly similar to those of the Tripp Trapp growing chair, amounting to a one-to-one copying of all details. Stokke therefore engaged Lusheng Law Firm to represent it in this case and filed a lawsuit. The Lusheng team conducted in-depth arguments around core issues such as the boundaries of the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law after patent expiry, and the demarcation between functionality and distinctiveness of shape trade dress. Ultimately, the court fully adopted the submissions of the Lusheng team, holding that the shape and configuration trade dress formed by the overall appearance of the growing chair at issue, characterized by unique lines and a minimalist design, should be protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court found that the defendant’s sale of the growing chairs constituted unfair competition, and ordered it to cease the infringement, compensate for losses in the amount of RMB 1.5 million, and eliminate the adverse impact. The defendant appealed against the first-instance judgment; the appeal was dismissed at second instance and the original judgment was upheld.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>I. Bridging the institutional gap between patent law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and establishing rules for the protection of shape trade dress</h3>
This case is a typical one concerning the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect product shapes that combine functionality and aesthetic appeal. Starting from the institutional logic of unfair competition, and through a thorough exposition of the connotation and extension of “trade dress,” the judgment clarifies that the trade dress of goods protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes “shape-structure trade dress.” From the perspective of the relationship between competition law and intellectual property law, it further clarifies that the fact that a shape configuration has been the subject of a patent application is not a necessary condition to deny that the appearance of a product may be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This judgment clarifies the relationship between the application of the Patent Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and provides a clear adjudicative path for the protection of product shapes that combine functionality with aesthetic features.
&nbsp;
<h3>II. Separating the functional and aesthetic levels of design, and precisely defining the boundaries of protection</h3>
The Lusheng team adduced evidence to prove that although the claims of the Tripp Trapp growing chair patent included components such as uprights, seat boards, footrests, and fastening devices, they did not define the specific shape, dimensions, curves, or angles formed when these components are combined. Those specific shapes, dimensions, curves, or angles are precisely the key elements of the product trade dress that the plaintiff seeks to protect in this case, and they differ to some extent from the technical solution asserted at the time of the patent application. This case distinguishes between the utilitarian functional design and the design elements with aesthetic significance and distinctiveness in the shape of the growing chair, thereby clarifying the scope of protection for product shapes that combine functionality and aesthetic appeal. It both protects the right of industry competitors to freely use designs in the public domain and safeguards the right holder’s unique contribution to the configuration of its product and the goodwill embodied in the product shape.

A Lusheng's case was selected as a 2025 Suzhou IP judicial protection model case

Recently, the inauguration ceremony of the Intellectual Property Working Committee and the “Zhi Qi Tong” Seminar on Intellectual Property Protection in the Era of Digital Intelligence was successfully held in Shanghai. At the event, the Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate released the Top Ten Criminal Protection Cases of Intellectual Property under the “Zhi Qi Tong” initiative. The case of “Peng XX and Zhao XX Illegally Manufacturing and Selling Illegally Manufactured Registered Trademark Identifications,” handled by Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner Rouse International on behalf of Zespri, was honored as one of the selected cases.
<h2>Brief Overview of the Case</h2>
From June to November 2023, the defendant Peng XX, without authorization from the right holder and for the purpose of obtaining illegal gains, accepted the entrustment of Zhao (handled in a separate case) to manufacture trademark labels bearing counterfeit registered trademarks of the right holder. Peng then separately entrusted the defendant Chen XX, who operated a certain packaging materials company in Chengdu, to manufacture the aforementioned trademark labels and sell them to Zhao. Zhao, acting in concert with Dai XX and Peng XX (handled in a separate case), purchased locally produced fresh kiwifruit from farmers in Pujiang County, Sichuan Province and other locations, hired workers to affix the aforementioned trademark labels onto the kiwifruit, and then sold them to the public via online stores. Rouse International, upon engagement by the right holder, assisted in the collection and preservation of infringement evidence and in the identification of counterfeit products. Upon review, it was ascertained that the quantities of registered trademark identifications manufactured and sold by the defendants Peng XX and Chen XX each amounted to 513,600.
On 18 July 2024, the People’s Procuratorate of Pudong New Area, Shanghai, filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as the “Pudong Court”) against the defendants Peng XX and Chen XX for the crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark identifications. During the course of the proceedings, Rouse International, in collaboration with Lusheng Law Firm, continuously provided legal support to the right holder and assisted the right holder in deeply participating in the litigation process. Following the first-instance judgment, neither of the two defendants filed an appeal, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>1. Precise full-chain crackdown to build a closed-loop protection mechanism for the entire lifecycle of intellectual property</h3>
In this case, a total of 513,600 counterfeit trademark identifications were seized, which were of high imitation accuracy and constituted the source of the identifications used in two other cases involving the manufacture and sale of counterfeit kiwifruit handled by the Pudong Procuratorate. Rouse International provided strong support to the procuratorial authorities in implementing a full-chain crackdown at each stage, including the source, counterfeiting, and sale of counterfeit goods, thereby achieving full lifecycle protection of intellectual property.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. Deep protection of the right holder’s right to participate in litigation, highlighting procedural justice and the status of the party</h3>
The right holder was deeply involved throughout the litigation process, from the recognition and identification of the infringing identifications to participation in court hearings and submission of legal opinions. Rouse International continuously provided professional legal support during the proceedings, assisting the right holder in effectively exercising various litigation rights. This fully reflects the judiciary’s respect for the right holder’s status as a party and demonstrates the practical achievements of procedural justice in the criminal protection of intellectual property.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. Comprehensive use of criminal sanctions to build a long-term mechanism for recidivism prevention</h3>
The breakthrough judicial highlight of this case lies in the regulation of the conduct of the printer of the infringing identifications. In order to reduce the risk of reoffending by the defendants, Rouse International, acting on behalf of the victim entity, applied for a prohibitory order. For the defendant whose principal business was label printing, while a suspended sentence was lawfully pronounced, it was expressly stipulated that the defendant is prohibited from engaging in the manufacture or sale of registered trademark identifications as a business activity during the probationary period. This measure prevents the risk of reoffending at the source and reflects a modernized transformation of criminal judicial protection of intellectual property from “punishment” to “governance.” This line of reasoning in adjudication has a strong demonstrative effect and promotional value for combating the grey industrial chain of intellectual property infringement in the printing and packaging industry.
&nbsp;
Rouse Case Team
Gao Tingting
Senior Consultant
Rouse International
Email: cgao@rouse.com

Lusheng's case was selected as a top ten IP criminal protection case by SPP No.3 and SFIAS

Chunxiao Dong

Recently, the Beijing Trademark Association released the “Administrative Litigation Cases of 2025.” The administrative litigation case concerning the review of refusal of Intel Corporation’s sound trademark, represented by Lusheng Law Firm, was honorably selected.
<h2>Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
In 2021, Intel Corporation updated its classic sound sign “灯，等灯等灯” and filed an application for registration of this new version of the sound sign as a trademark. The China National Intellectual Property Administration rejected the application on the ground that the sound trademark fell under the circumstance of “lack of distinctiveness” as stipulated in Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Trademark Law. Subsequently, Intel Corporation engaged Lusheng Law Firm to be fully responsible for formulating the litigation strategy and acting as its counsel in this case, and instituted an action against the decision on review of refusal. In the course of the litigation, Lusheng’s lawyers systematically sorted out and constructed a complete chain of evidence regarding the distinctiveness of the sound trademark, and submitted a large amount of evidence to the court to demonstrate that, through long-term promotion and use, the sound sign had established a corresponding relationship with Intel and was capable of distinguishing the source of goods. Ultimately, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court fully adopted the arguments advanced by our firm, held that the sound trademark did not fall under the circumstance of lack of distinctiveness and did not violate Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Trademark Law, and rendered a judgment to revoke the challenged decision on review of refusal.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>I. Filling the Judicial Gap and Establishing a Benchmark for the Assessment of Distinctiveness of Sound Trademarks</h3>
Since sound trademarks were first brought within the scope of protection by the Trademark Law in 2014, only slightly more than 40 sound trademarks have been registered, which is a very small number. Apart from this case, the only prior case in which a sound trademark was ultimately allowed registration through judicial review overturning a decision on review of refusal was the Tencent QQ alert tone case, and there are very few judicial precedents available for reference. The successful registration of Intel’s sound trademark through judicial review in this case constitutes a valuable exploration of the current standards for approval and registration of sound trademarks.
&nbsp;
<h3>II. Overcoming the Difficulties of Proof and Constructing an Evidentiary System for Acquired Distinctiveness of Sound Trademarks</h3>
Sound trademarks differ from traditional visual trademarks in that they cannot be directly affixed to products or their transactional documents to form a corresponding relationship, and usually require specific playback media for independent playback, being separate from the products. In light of this factor, Lusheng’s lawyers focused on the correspondence between the sound trademark and the provider of the products, and constructed a triadic chain of evidence linking the sound, the word trademarks, and the products, supplemented by evidence of advertising and promotion as well as proof of consumer recognition, thereby forming a logically rigorous and well-structured evidentiary system. It was ultimately successfully demonstrated that, through long-term promotion and use, the sound trademark had established a unique corresponding relationship with the plaintiff. This case provides a replicable and scalable practical path for adducing evidence to prove acquired distinctiveness of sound trademarks.
&nbsp;
<h3>III. Being at the Forefront of the Industry and Opening Up New Fields of Legal Services for Sound Trademarks</h3>
Against the backdrop of the rapid development of the mobile internet, sound trademarks, as dynamic identifiers, have a higher degree of compatibility with advanced network technologies than traditional word and device trademarks, and align with the characteristics of large volume and high speed of online dissemination. They may even, to a certain extent, transcend geographical and linguistic barriers and spread rapidly worldwide. The diversification of future marketing media will bring greater attention and application to sound trademarks in identifying the source of goods or services. The successful experience in this case opens up broader space for the commercial application and value realization of sound trademarks in the internet era.

Lusheng’s case was selected as a 2025 administrative litigation case by BTA

Recently, the Wuxi courts released the “Top Ten Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights for 2025.” The case “Unfair Competition Involving Imitation of the ‘New Balance’ Sports Shoes Trade Dress,” in which Lusheng Law Firm acted as counsel, was honorably selected.
<h2>Brief Overview of the Case</h2>
The trade dress of “New Balance” sports shoes, including the prominent use of the capital, bold letter “N” on both sides of the shoes, has been recognized in multiple effective judgments by the Supreme People’s Court and other courts as a product trade dress with a certain degree of influence. However, multiple entities including the defendant Niu Company, Xin Company, Sheng Company, and others, produced and sold on a large scale sports shoes bearing the “<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/lusheng/3nzcym3p/image.png?mode=max&amp;anchor=&amp;width=32&amp;height=26" alt="" width="32" height="26">” sign nationwide through online e-commerce platforms and offline physical stores (claiming to have more than 1,000 stores). The plaintiff considered that the defendants, by unauthorized use of a sign similar to its well-known product trade dress, acted with obvious subjective malice and on a massive infringing scale, and therefore engaged Lusheng Law Firm to take full responsibility for formulating the litigation strategy and acting as counsel in this case.
The Lusheng team systematically sorted out evidence of the scale of the defendants’ infringement and their profits, and constructed a rigorous evidentiary system for damages. The court fully adopted the submissions of counsel, finding that the accused infringing sign was similar to the “N” letter trade dress and sufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public. The court ordered the defendants to cease the infringement, destroy inventory, publish a statement in the China Intellectual Property News to eliminate the adverse impact, and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses in the amount of RMB 15 million. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, the defendants appealed. The second-instance judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>I. Dual-Track Protection Strategy Successfully Overcomes the Registered Trademark Defense</h3>
In response to the infringers’ defense that they were ostensibly using their registered trademarks lawfully, the team innovatively adopted the approach under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, asserting that the “N” sign had already constituted a distinctive trade dress of a product with a certain degree of influence. Through meticulous comparison of the shoe designs and analysis of the overall visual effect, the team successfully demonstrated that the infringers deliberately highlighted the “N” sign to free-ride on the goodwill of New Balance, which was sufficient to cause consumer confusion and showed clear subjective malice.
&nbsp;
<h3>II. Determination of Joint and Several Liability to Ensure the Effectiveness of Judgment Enforcement</h3>
With respect to the integrated infringement chain formed through division of labor and cooperation among multiple affiliated companies and key natural persons, the team conducted in-depth investigations and fully adduced evidence of each defendant’s substantive participation in production and business operations, including the fact that major shareholders directly participated in the infringing acts. The court ultimately held that each defendant bore joint and several liability, effectively blocking the infringers’ attempt to disperse liability through corporate structuring, and significantly enhancing the enforceability of the judgment and the effectiveness of subsequent enforcement.
&nbsp;
<h3>III. Data-Based Calculation of Damages and Comprehensive Restoration of Market Order</h3>
Given the massive scale of the infringement, the team, based on transaction data obtained through multiple notarized purchases, constructed a multi-dimensional profit calculation model, fully demonstrating that the actual profits of the infringers far exceeded the claimed amount, which ultimately prompted the court to award a high amount of damages of RMB 15 million. In addition to monetary compensation, the case also achieved a significant market governance effect: the number of infringing stores dropped sharply from more than one thousand to thirty-eight.

Lusheng’s IP case was selected as a 2025 Top Ten IP Judicial Protection Case by Wuxi courts

Congratulations to ​the Managing Partner, Global Co-Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution, Landy Jiang for being listed in Hurun Legal · Greater China Preeminent Intellectual Property Legal Services Guide.
<h2> Hurun Legal · Greater China Preeminent Intellectual Property Legal Services Guide</h2>
As the first major research achievement by Hurun Group in the legal services sector, the Guide focuses on the growing importance of intellectual property as a key driver of corporate competitiveness. It seeks to answer two core questions: What changes are currently taking place in the IP legal services market? What kind of IP lawyers are companies looking for?To address these questions from the perspective of real corporate needs, the research team conducted an in-depth study of over 350 outstanding IP lawyers, reviewed 1,126 typical project case studies, and gathered feedback from more than 500 corporate clients. This was complemented by official data from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Supreme People’s Court, resulting in a systematic industry research report.

Landy Jiang has been listed in Hurun Legal Greater China Preeminent Intellectual Property Legal Services Guide

We are delighted to share that Lusheng has been recognized on the “2025 Outstanding IP Service Team” list.
&nbsp;
<h2>Outstanding Intellectual Property Service Team&nbsp;</h2>
The "15th Five-Year Plan" period marks a critical, transitional phase in building China into a world-leading intellectual property (IP) power. To implement the requirements of the national IP talent development strategy and to build upon the achievements of the "Outstanding IP Service Team" selection and cultivation initiative, IP Observer, together with the Beijing Sunshine Intellectual Property and Legal Development Foundation and other organizations, jointly launched the "2025 Outstanding IP Service Team" selection and cultivation project. The final list was determined through a combination of self-nominations, external recommendations, and comprehensive expert review.

Lusheng has been recognized on the 2025 Outstanding IP Service Team list

We are very pleased to share that Lusheng has been ranked in the Silver Tier of the World Trademark Review 1000 2026 rankings. Landy Jiang, Carol Wang, Sharon Qiao have all been recognized, August Zhang is celebrated as a Luminary.
&nbsp;
Lusheng Law Firm
China (Domestic) : Silver&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Landy Jiang
Prosecution and Litigation - Silver Tier
&nbsp;
Sharon Qiao
Prosecution and Litigation - Bronze Tier
&nbsp;
Carol Wang
Prosecution and Litigation - Silver Tier
&nbsp;
August Zhang
Prosecution and Litigation - Luminary (China Domestic)
&nbsp;
<h2>The WTR 1000 Listing</h2>
The WTR 1000 listing is the result of an extensive, independent research process conducted globally by World Trademark Review (WTR). Through in-depth analysis of thousands of trademark and intellectual property practices, combined with client feedback, assessment of service quality, and evaluation of team strength, WTR compiles this definitive guide. It is widely regarded as the authoritative analysis of the world's leading trademark law firms and professionals.

Lusheng once again recognized by the WTR 1000, with multiple leading individuals honored

<div class="description">
<div class="description">
Congratulations to ​Honorary Managing Partner of Lusheng Law Firm, August Zhang for being listed in 2025 China IP Experts by Asia IP.
&nbsp;
<h2>Asia IP | China IP Experts</h2>
Asia IP focuses on the dynamics and development of the IP field in the Asia-Pacific region and is highly authoritative in the industry. The selection of its list, China IP Experts, is based on nominations and recommendations from thousands of well-known corporate legal affairs and law firm partners in China, Asia and around the world.
</div>
</div>

Discover Our Latest Developments, and Success Stories Driving the Future of IP

Lusheng secures important rulings on trade secrets infringement in IP licensing industry

Lusheng wins New Balance unfair competition case; Jiangsu High Court awards RMB 15m

Landy Jiang has been listed in Hurun Legal Greater China Preeminent Intellectual Property Legal Services Guide

Read More

INTA forum “Beyond Trademarks: Diverse Paths for Brand Protection” was held in Shanghai

Lusheng Secures RMB 1 Million Victory in Technical Trade Secrets Infringement Dispute

Landy Jiang, Eddie Wang and Terry Lu win the 2026 Mondaq Spring Award

Sophia Hou has been selected for the Expert in Xiangyang IP Oversea Dispute Resolution Expert Directory

Lusheng’s case was selected as a 2025 Case Talk IP top ten IP model case

Lusheng shortlisted in 2026 ALB China Regional Law Awards: East China

Stay in the loop with
our latest listings

Discover Our Latest Developments, and Success Stories Driving the Future of IP

Lusheng secures important rulings on trade secrets infringement in IP licensing industry

Lusheng wins New Balance unfair competition case; Jiangsu High Court awards RMB 15m

Landy Jiang has been listed in Hurun Legal Greater China Preeminent Intellectual Property Legal Services Guide

Read More

INTA forum “Beyond Trademarks: Diverse Paths for Brand Protection” was held in Shanghai

Lusheng Secures RMB 1 Million Victory in Technical Trade Secrets Infringement Dispute

Landy Jiang, Eddie Wang and Terry Lu win the 2026 Mondaq Spring Award

Sophia Hou has been selected for the Expert in Xiangyang IP Oversea Dispute Resolution Expert Directory

Lusheng’s case was selected as a 2025 Case Talk IP top ten IP model case

Lusheng shortlisted in 2026 ALB China Regional Law Awards: East China

Stay in the loop with our latest listings

Stay in the loop with
our latest listings