Lusheng Law Firm, in collaboration with its strategic partner Rouse, has been driven by innovative thinking and has continuously achieved breakthroughs in a number of landmark cases across various industries in recent years, earning wide recognition in the industry. In the past year, a total of 11 of our cases have stood out in various selections of typical cases.
Acting for a well-known multinational health products company in a case involving multiple persons manufacturing and selling counterfeit and substandard products and counterfeiting registered trademarks
Selected for
-
Typical cases of procuratorial organs punishing crimes endangering food and drug safety in accordance with the law, released by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2025)
Case Brief
The right holder is a well-known multinational health products company. Since 2023, the defendant He, together with Guo and others, formed a criminal gang spanning multiple regions. Through the procurement of raw materials, commissioned imitation production, filling and labelling, and online sales, they manufactured and sold on a large scale various counterfeit health products, including brands owned by the right holder, and sold them nationwide via e-commerce platforms. Among them, the defendants Pang and Su were specifically responsible for key steps such as filling, labelling and coding of semi-finished products. By the time the case was uncovered, He and others had manufactured and sold more than 120,000 bottles of counterfeit and substandard health food, with sales exceeding RMB 8 million.
In September 2024, the Shanghai Railway Transport People’s Procuratorate instituted a public prosecution against the defendants He and Guo for the crime of manufacturing and selling counterfeit and substandard products, and against the defendants Pang and Su for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and simultaneously filed an incidental civil public interest action. In June 2025, the Shanghai Railway Transport Court sentenced the defendant He to fifteen years’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 4 million for the crime of manufacturing and selling counterfeit and substandard products; and sentenced the defendant Guo to eight years and six months’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 800,000. For the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, the court sentenced the defendant Pang to four years and six months’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 300,000; and sentenced the defendant Su to one year and four months’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 10,000. The judgment ordered all defendants to apologize to the general public, issue food risk warnings, and bear the costs of harmless disposal. After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, none of the defendants appealed, and the judgment has become legally effective.
Lusheng Law Firm acted for the right holder, assisting the law enforcement and judicial authorities in the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of the criminal suspects.
Typical Significance
1. Achieving precise full-chain crackdown and tiered handling of counterfeiting and selling counterfeit products in the health products sector
The criminal chain in this case was long, involving many links and numerous persons, covering core raw material supply, production of finished product packaging materials, filling of counterfeit and substandard products, warehousing, and shipment in the production and sales process, and was characterized by a wide distribution of personnel scattered across various industries. The procuratorial and public security organs worked closely together, digging from the downstream sales end to the upstream production source, comprehensively collecting key evidence and achieving the full-chain destruction of the criminal network.
2. Promoting refined determination of division of labor and liability within the criminal gang by judicial organs
In this case, the counterfeiting gang was tightly organized, with numerous links from raw material procurement and imitation production to filling and labelling and online sales. With respect to the key steps directly implementing the act of counterfeiting registered trademarks, such as filling and labelling, for which Pang and Su and others were specifically responsible, the judicial organs, based on the relevant evidence, accurately determined that their conduct constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. This refined distinction based on the nature of the conduct precisely pursued the legal liability of infringers at each stage and provided an effective model for combating organized trademark infringement crimes.
3. Professional legal support facilitating full-chain crackdown on infringement and effective relief for rights
In the face of challenges such as the criminal gang destroying electronic evidence and difficulties in determining the amount of crime, the case-handling authorities took a multi-dimensional approach to trace the source of infringement, lock in the criminal network, and accurately calculate the scale of infringement. As a result, the case ultimately not only achieved criminal sanctions against the principal infringers, but also, through incidental civil public interest litigation and the promotion of platform governance, imposed liabilities such as public apology and payment of disposal costs on the infringers, and prompted the removal of the infringing goods from shelves and closure of stores, thereby achieving a three-dimensional crackdown on infringement and comprehensive protection of the right holder’s interests from the criminal, civil and social governance perspectives.
Acting for a well-known U.S. film and entertainment company in a case involving the manufacture and sale of counterfeit licensed products
Selected for
- Typical cases of public security organs strengthening criminal protection of intellectual property rights and serving and safeguarding high-quality development (2025)
Previously selected for:
- Ten typical cases of the Ministry of Public Security cracking down on online IP infringement and counterfeiting crimes in accordance with the law (2024)
Case Brief
Lusheng Law Firm, in cooperation with its strategic partner Rouse, successfully assisted a well-known U.S. film and entertainment company and the Beijing public security authorities in cracking a major cross-border case involving the manufacture and sale of counterfeit children’s backpacks. Investigation revealed that the criminal suspects Qin and Zeng and others had long been engaged in the production and sale of counterfeit children’s backpacks, exporting large quantities of infringing products to countries along the “Belt and Road” through cross-border e-commerce platforms and offline wholesale channels.
In this case, the gang manufactured and sold large quantities of counterfeit children’s backpacks infringing the client’s registered trademarks, involving multiple well-known film characters. The team has long provided brand protection and rights enforcement services in China for this client. Upon discovering the infringing acts of the criminal gang, the team immediately launched an in-depth investigation, accurately pinpointed the production, warehousing and sales dens, assisted the client in preserving key evidence, and promoted the filing and investigation of the case by the public security organs.
In May 2024, based on clues reported by the right holder enterprise, the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and its Chaoyang Branch cracked the case, arrested 22 criminal suspects, destroyed 6 dens involved in the case, dismantled 3 criminal gangs, and seized nearly 10,000 counterfeit children’s backpacks on site, with the amount involved exceeding RMB 10 million.
Typical Significance
This case is the largest case involving counterfeiting the right holder’s registered trademarks that Lusheng Law Firm and Rouse have assisted the right holder in handling in the Chinese market. The products involved not only infringed the right holder’s intellectual property rights, but also failed to meet China’s mandatory national standards for product quality. The large-scale export of such counterfeit and substandard children’s products to countries along the Belt and Road not only hindered the high-quality development of the Belt and Road Initiative, but also damaged the reputation of the right holder’s brand. The successful investigation and handling of this case benefited from the case-handling team’s accurate assessment of the cross-border infringement chain and efficient evidence collection, demonstrated the deterrent effect of criminal measures in combating infringement and counterfeiting, effectively maintained order in the children’s products market, safeguarded the health and safety of minors, and contributed to the high-quality development of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Acting for a world-renowned entertainment company in a copyright infringement case involving multiple persons in Xuzhou circumventing technological measures
Selected for
- Top Ten Cases of Combating Infringement and Piracy Nationwide in 2024 by the National Copyright Administration
Case Brief
Li, together with nine others, developed auxiliary cracking programs for game consoles, processed and produced cracking devices for game verification systems, installed such devices on handheld game consoles and sold them for profit, with the amount of illegal business operations being huge. Lusheng Law Firm acted for the right holder to assist the public security organs, the procuratorate and the court, providing legal opinions and promoting the progress of the case.
In May 2022, the Jiawang Branch of the Xuzhou Municipal Public Security Bureau, Jiangsu Province, opened a criminal investigation into the case. In May 2024, the Gulou District People’s Procuratorate of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, instituted a public prosecution for the crime of copyright infringement in accordance with the law. In November 2024, the Xuzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone People’s Court of Jiangsu Province convicted Li and the other nine persons of copyright infringement and sentenced them to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from three years and six months to two years and six months, with some given suspended sentences, and imposed fines ranging from RMB 11 million to RMB 1.5 million. Some defendants appealed to the Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, which, after trial, decided to uphold the original judgment.
Typical Significance
1. The right holder’s first criminal judgment involving “devices for circumventing or bypassing technological measures”
During the handling of the case, the lawyers actively cooperated with the public security organs, the procuratorate and the court in explaining the technical issues involved in the case to resolve technical difficulties. They successfully had the conduct in this case of “providing devices primarily used for circumventing technological measures” recognized as the criminal act of “circumventing or bypassing technological measures” under the crime of copyright infringement. This case is the right holder’s first criminal judgment in China against “devices for circumventing or bypassing technological measures”, laying a solid foundation for the right holder’s subsequent rights protection.
2. Substantive participation in the case and provision of opinions on technical issues and legal application
At the stage of examination for prosecution, the lawyers proactively applied for access to the case file, reviewed the case, and submitted legal opinions to the procuratorial organ. The procuratorial organ adopted the lawyers’ opinions and confirmed the legal characterization of “devices for circumventing or bypassing technological measures”. At the trial stage, the lawyers appeared in court as litigation agents and presented opinions on the technical issues and copyright-related matters involved in the case, thereby achieving protection of the right holder’s copyright.
This case involved numerous defendants, a huge amount of money, and complex technical and legal issues. The effective participation of the lawyers ensured the protection of the right holder’s litigation rights and also guaranteed the judicial organs’ fair trial of the case.
Acting for an international luxury brand in a trademark infringement dispute against an individual
Selected for
-
Typical Cases of Punitive Damages for Intellectual Property Rights by the Guangdong High People’s Court (2025)
Case Brief
The client is the right holder of an internationally renowned jewelry and watch brand. Its trademarks have been repeatedly recognized as well-known trademarks by the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce and by effective court judgments, and enjoy a very high reputation. Previously, the client had filed a lawsuit against Zhang for selling watches infringing its trademark rights, and the parties reached a settlement agreement under which Zhang undertook to cease infringement, destroy infringing products in stock, pay compensation to the client, and expressly promised to pay punitive damages if he committed infringement again. However, Zhang failed to honor his commitments and instead diverted traffic from the original infringing WeChat store to multiple WeChat accounts of himself and related persons, and set up new WeChat stores to continue selling infringing watches.
Lusheng Law Firm represented the client in filing a lawsuit with the court, requesting an order that Zhang 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 held that the trademark involved enjoyed a high reputation, and that Zhang, after reaching a settlement in the previous litigation, did not cease his infringing acts but continued to seek illegal profits, constituting repeated infringement. He also used WeChat accounts of related persons to sell infringing watches, intending to evade liability for infringement. His subjective intent was clearly malicious and the circumstances of infringement were serious, and punitive damages should be applied. After lawfully obtaining Zhang’s transaction details, the court calculated his sales amount during the infringement period and then determined his infringing profits based on the average profit margin of the industry as the base for punitive damages, applying double punitive damages. The court ordered Zhang to compensate Company K for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses totaling more than RMB 720,000.
Typical Significance
1. Successfully overcoming obstacles to the application of punitive damages and establishing a benchmark judgment for “concealed infringement after settlement”
In this case, the Lusheng team applied for the retrieval of transaction records of multiple accounts held by Zhang and submitted similar case judgments as corroboration. On the basis of fully considering the well-known status of the trademark involved, they effectively proved Zhang’s subjective malice in repeated infringement and the scale of infringement. In response to Zhang’s defenses such as “fake transactions” and “payments unrelated to infringement”, the Lusheng team used professional evidence analysis to prove that his receipts mainly originated from sales of infringing products.
The court ultimately applied the rule on obstruction of evidence, using the retrieved payment records as the base and referring to the industry’s average profit margin to apply double punitive damages, effectively resolving 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 strictly punishing concealed repeated infringement.
2. Innovating electronic data evidence collection models to address the problem of concealed infringement
In response to the infringer’s use of multiple WeChat accounts of others and Alipay accounts for payment as new concealed infringement methods, this case, by applying to the court for retrieval of full-chain electronic transaction records, constructed a complete evidentiary chain of infringing profits, providing a replicable rights protection solution for electronic data evidence collection and damages calculation in similar cases.
3. Improving full-chain judicial protection for well-known trademarks
As a successful rights protection case for an international luxury brand, this case formed a closed-loop protection model of “discovery–settlement–re-infringement–punishment” from supervision of settlement agreement performance to crackdown on new infringing acts, significantly enhancing the right holder’s rights protection effectiveness and having demonstrative significance for intellectual property protection of similar luxury brands in China.
Acting for New Balance in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against Shenzhen Xinpingheng Sports Goods Co. (New Boom) and others
Selected for
-
Fifty Most Influential Cases of Intellectual Property Adjudication by Jiangsu Courts in Serving and Safeguarding High-Quality Economic and Social Development (1995–2025)
Previously selected for:
-
Special Grand Prize for Excellent Judgments of Jiangsu Provincial Courts in 2021
-
Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Suzhou IP Tribunal (2017–2021)
-
Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Jiangsu Courts in 2020
-
Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts in 2018 selected by the Supreme People’s Court
Case Brief
New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (“New Balance China”) obtained, through lawful authorization, the non-exclusive right to use the “NEW BALANCE” and “device” trademarks within China, and adopted a design featuring the letter “N” on both sides of its footwear products. Through establishing an overseas company, Zheng authorized Shenzhen Xinpingheng Company to produce in large quantities sports shoes bearing the “device” mark and featuring the “N” letter design on both sides, and to promote and sell them online and offline. Xinniubailun Shoe Factory promoted and sold the accused infringing sports shoes on its Alibaba online store, claiming to be the manufacturer of the accused infringing sports shoes. Bostak Company was responsible for the research and development and production of the accused infringing sports shoes. The official website of Shenzhen Xinpingheng Company published numerous articles containing false publicity that misappropriated honors of New Balance sports shoes. On this basis, New Balance China filed a lawsuit with the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court. During the litigation, upon application, the court issued an interlocutory injunction, but several defendants refused to comply with the effective ruling and, when the court served legal documents, threw the documents next to a police car in public. The court decided to impose fines ranging from RMB 100,000 to RMB 1 million on several defendants. Upon trial, the court held that Shenzhen Xinpingheng Company, Xinniubailun Shoe Factory, Bostak Company and others constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and fully supported New Balance China’s claim for RMB 10 million in damages.
Typical Significance
This case was the first in Jiangsu Province in which an injunction was issued involving the unique trade dress of a well-known product, and the first in which an interlocutory injunction covered the entire chain from prohibiting production and sales to prohibiting false publicity. Subsequently, the court imposed judicial fines on the respondents for refusing to comply with the interlocutory injunction. On the merits, the court made useful explorations in the refined calculation of the right holder’s actual losses and lawfully applied punitive damages, fully supporting the plaintiff’s claim for RMB 10 million. This case was also selected as one of the “Top 100 Excellent Judgments” of the first National Courts Selection, one of the Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts in 2018, and one of the Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Jiangsu Courts in 2018.
Peng and Zhao’s case of illegal manufacture and sale of illegally manufactured registered trademark identifiers
Selected for
-
Top Ten Cases of Criminal Protection of Intellectual Property Rights under the “Zhiqitong” Program jointly selected by the Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate and the Shanghai Foreign Investment Association
Case Brief
From June to November 2023, without authorization from the right holder and for the purpose of seeking illegal gains, the defendant Peng accepted a commission from Zhao (handled in a separate case) to manufacture trademark labels counterfeiting the right holder’s registered trademarks. Peng then further commissioned the defendant Chen, who operated a certain packaging materials company in Chengdu, to manufacture the aforesaid trademark labels and sell them to Zhao. Zhao, together with Dai and Peng (handled in a separate case), purchased locally produced fresh kiwifruit from farmers in Pujiang County, Sichuan Province and other places, hired workers to affix the aforesaid trademark labels to the kiwifruit, and sold them online through shops. Rouse, entrusted by the right holder, assisted in collecting and preserving evidence of infringement and identifying counterfeit products. Upon examination, it was found that the number of registered trademark identifiers manufactured and sold by the defendants Peng and Chen was 513,600.
On 18 July 2024, the Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Procuratorate instituted a public prosecution against the defendants Peng and Chen for the crime of illegal manufacture and sale of illegally manufactured registered trademark identifiers with the Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Pudong Court”). Rouse, in collaboration with Lusheng Law Firm, continued to provide legal support to the right holder during the litigation process and assisted the right holder in deeply participating in the litigation proceedings. After the first-instance judgment, neither of the two defendants appealed, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
Typical Significance
1. Precise full-chain crackdown and construction of a closed-loop system for full life-cycle protection of intellectual property rights
The number of counterfeit trademark identifiers seized in this case reached 513,600, with high imitation accuracy, and they were the source of identifiers in two other cases involving counterfeit kiwifruit handled by the Pudong Procuratorate. Rouse provided strong support to the procuratorial organ in implementing a full-chain crackdown from the source, to counterfeiting, to selling counterfeit goods, thereby achieving full life-cycle protection of intellectual property rights.
2. Deep protection of the right holder’s right to participate in litigation, highlighting procedural justice and the status of the right holder
The right holder deeply participated in the litigation process, from identifying and distinguishing the infringing identifiers to appearing in court and submitting legal opinions. Rouse continuously provided professional legal support during the litigation, assisting the right holder in effectively exercising various litigation rights, fully reflecting the judicial organs’ respect for the right holder’s status and demonstrating the practical achievements of procedural justice in criminal protection of intellectual property rights.
3. Comprehensive use of criminal sanctions to build a long-term mechanism for preventing recidivism
The breakthrough judicial highlight of this case lies in the regulation of the conduct of the printer of infringing identifiers. To reduce the risk of reoffending by the defendants, Rouse, acting for the victim entity, applied for a prohibition order. While granting a suspended sentence to the defendant whose main business was label printing, the court explicitly prohibited him from engaging in the production and operation of manufacturing and selling registered trademark identifiers during the probation period, thereby preventing the risk of recidivism at the source and reflecting the modernization transformation of criminal judicial protection of intellectual property rights from “punishment” to “governance”. This judicial approach has a strong demonstrative effect and promotional value for cracking down on the grey industrial chain of intellectual property in the printing and packaging industry.
Tripp Trapp growth chair shape trade dress unfair competition case
Selected for
-
Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Suzhou Courts in 2025
Case Brief
The Tripp Trapp growth chair under Stokke was rated by Fortune magazine as one of the “100 Greatest Modern Designs” for its unique design. Its structure was once patented in the United States in 1975, and the protection period has now expired. However, Stokke discovered that a certain children’s home products company was selling growth chairs in its online store whose shape was highly similar to that of the Tripp Trapp growth chair, constituting a one-to-one copy of all details. Stokke therefore entrusted Lusheng Law Firm to act in this case and file 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 distinction between functionality and distinctiveness of shape trade dress. Ultimately, the court fully adopted the Lusheng team’s arguments, holding that the shape trade dress formed by the unique lines and simple shape of the overall appearance of the growth chair involved should be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and that the defendant’s sale of the growth chairs constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the defendant to cease the infringement, compensate for losses of RMB 1.5 million, and eliminate the adverse impact. After the first-instance judgment, the defendant appealed, and the second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical Significance
1. Bridging the institutional gap between patent law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and establishing rules for the protection of shape trade dress
This case is a typical one concerning the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect product shapes that combine functionality and aesthetics. Starting from the institutional logic of unfair competition, and through a full exposition of the connotation and extension of “trade dress”, the judgment clarified that the trade dress of goods protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes “shape and structure trade dress”. From the perspective of the relationship between competition law and intellectual property law, the judgment clarified that the fact that a shape has been patented is not a necessary condition for denying that the appearance of a product can be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The judgment clarified the relationship between the application of the Patent Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and provided a clear adjudication path for protecting product shapes that combine functionality and aesthetics.
2. Separating functional and aesthetic design layers and precisely defining the boundaries of protection
The Lusheng team adduced evidence to prove that although the claims of the Tripp Trapp growth chair patent included components such as uprights, seat boards, footrests and fastening devices, they did not define the specific shape, size, curve or angle formed when these components were combined, whereas the specific shape, size, curve or angle were precisely the key design elements of the trade dress claimed by the plaintiff in this case and differed to some extent from the technical solution claimed in the patent application. This case distinguished between the functional design and the design with aesthetic significance and distinctiveness in the shape of the growth chair, clarifying the scope of protection for such product shapes that combine functionality and aesthetics. It not only protects the right of industry competitors to freely use designs in the public domain, but also protects the right holder’s unique contribution to the shape of its products and the goodwill embodied in the product shape.
Unfair competition case involving imitation of “New Balance” sports shoe trade dress
Selected for
-
Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Wuxi Courts in 2025
Case Brief
The “New Balance” sports shoes and the trade dress of the capital, bold letter “N” used in prominent positions on both sides of the shoes have been recognized as trade dress with certain influence by the Supreme People’s Court and in multiple effective judgments. However, the defendants Niu Company, Xin Company, Sheng Company and other entities produced and sold on a large scale sports shoes bearing the “” mark nationwide through online e-commerce platforms and offline physical stores (claiming to have more than 1,000 stores). The plaintiff believed that the defendants’ unauthorized use of a mark similar to its well-known trade dress demonstrated obvious subjective malice and that the scale of infringement was huge, and therefore entrusted Lusheng Law Firm to be fully responsible for the formulation of litigation strategy and representation in this case.
The Lusheng team systematically sorted out evidence of the scale of infringement and profits of the defendants and constructed a rigorous evidentiary system for damages. The court fully adopted the arguments of the representatives, held that the accused infringing mark was similar to the “N” letter trade dress and sufficient to cause confusion among relevant consumers, and ordered the defendants to cease the infringement, destroy inventory, publish a statement in China Intellectual Property News to eliminate the impact, and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 15 million. After the first-instance judgment, the defendants appealed, and the second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical Significance
1. Dual-track protection strategy successfully overcoming the defense of registered trademark use
In response to the infringer’s defense of ostensibly lawful use of its registered trademark, the team innovatively adopted the Anti-Unfair Competition Law approach, arguing that the “N” mark had constituted the unique trade dress of goods with certain influence. Through detailed comparison of shoe designs and analysis of overall visual effects, the team successfully proved that the infringer deliberately highlighted the “N” mark to free ride on New Balance’s goodwill, which was sufficient to cause consumer confusion and demonstrated obvious subjective malice.
2. Determination of joint and several liability to ensure the effectiveness of judgment enforcement
In view of the integrated infringement chain formed by multiple affiliated companies and key natural persons through division of labor and cooperation, the team conducted in-depth investigations and fully adduced evidence of each defendant’s substantive participation in production and operation, including the fact that major shareholders directly participated in the infringing acts. The court ultimately held that all defendants bore joint and several liability, effectively blocking the infringers’ attempt to disperse liability through corporate structures and significantly enhancing the enforceability and subsequent enforcement effect of the judgment.
3. Data-based damages calculation and comprehensive restoration of market order
Given the huge scale of infringement, the team, based on transaction data obtained through multiple notarized purchases, constructed a multi-dimensional profit estimation model and fully proved that the infringers’ actual profits far exceeded the claimed amount, ultimately prompting the court to award high damages of RMB 15 million. In addition to monetary compensation, the case also achieved significant market governance effects: the number of infringing stores dropped sharply from more than 1,000 to 38.
Acting for Pizza Hut in invalidation proceedings against the “Cheddar” and “Parmesan” series of trademarks
Selected for
-
Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Industry Intellectual Property Case of the Year 2025 by the China Trademark Association
Case Brief
In recent years, Beijing Chaofan Food Co., Ltd. has engaged in bulk preemptive registration of generic terms/food ingredient names in Class 29, with a total of more than 190 registrations, including the “Cheddar” trademark No. 12944450 and the “Parmesan” trademark No. 6030144, which are typical hoarding-type bad-faith registrations. Pizza Hut International, LLC (“Pizza Hut”), as a globally renowned chain restaurant brand, has long used core ingredients such as cheddar cheese and parmesan cheese in its dishes. The above registrations not only hindered Pizza Hut from accurately describing its products using industry-standard terminology, but also posed potential legal risks to Pizza Hut’s normal business operations. Entrusted by Pizza Hut, Rouse was fully responsible for trademark agency work in this case and filed separate invalidation requests with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) against the two trademarks. Through an overall layout, series rights protection, and a multi-dimensional closed-loop evidentiary strategy, CNIPA ultimately upheld the requests and declared both disputed trademarks invalid.
Typical Significance
1. Cracking down hard on trademark hoarding and purifying the competitive ecology of the industry
The bulk preemptive registration of generic food names seriously disrupts the order of trademark registration administration. The Rouse team advanced the matter in a coordinated manner as a series of cases, by examining the applicant’s qualifications, business scope and actual use, and by fixing a list of more than 190 trademarks under the applicant’s name, thereby reconstructing the complete chain of the applicant’s bulk preemptive registrations. CNIPA ultimately held that the applicant’s conduct constituted preemptive registration by “improper means” and declared both disputed trademarks invalid. This not only directly eliminated the hoarded trademarks, but also sent a clear signal to the market of severely cracking down on trademark hoarding, effectively maintaining a fair competitive market order.
2. Clarifying the boundaries of generic names and establishing adjudication rules for the industry
Whether “Cheddar” is a generic name in the cheese industry and whether “Parmesan” can be monopolized directly affects the lawful operating space of the entire industry. The Rouse team constructed a multi-dimensional closed-loop evidentiary chain covering industry publications, lists of protected geographical indications and appellations of origin, National Library search reports, and similar case decisions. On this basis, CNIPA held that “Cheddar” is a generic name customarily used in the cheese industry and that “Parmesan”, when used on “cheese” goods, merely indicates the main ingredient characteristics of the goods. This outcome provides clear legal grounds for restaurant, baking and dairy enterprises to use public names and effectively reduces industry compliance costs.
3. Safeguarding consumers’ right to know and boosting market players’ confidence
Using the generic name “Cheddar” of the cheese industry on non-related goods such as soy milk is highly likely to cause the public to misunderstand the ingredients and also to associate it with “Cheddar County”, a historical area in Somerset, England, thereby causing misperception of origin. Using “Parmesan” on non-related goods such as ham is likely to cause the public to misunderstand the ingredients and origin of the goods, thereby harming consumers’ right to know. The Rouse team simultaneously invoked multiple provisions, including the prohibition on registration of generic names/ingredient names, deceptive and misleading marks, and preemptive registration by improper means, forming a three-dimensional legal protection network. CNIPA rendered invalidation decisions based on multiple legal provisions. The successful experience in this case provides a replicable and promotable rights protection model for FMCG enterprises, encouraging more market players to proactively resist bad-faith registrations and jointly safeguard public resources in the industry.
Acting for Intel in an administrative litigation case over review of refusal of a sound trademark
Selected for
-
“Administrative Litigation Case of the Year 2025” by the Beijing Trademark Association
Case Brief
In 2021, Intel updated its classic “da-da-da-dum” sound logo and applied for registration of the new version as a sound trademark. CNIPA refused the application on the ground that the sound trademark fell under the circumstance of “lack of distinctiveness” as stipulated in Article 11(1)(3) of the Trademark Law. Intel then entrusted Lusheng Law Firm to be fully responsible for the formulation of litigation strategy and representation in this case and filed an administrative lawsuit against the review decision on refusal. During the litigation, Lusheng’s lawyers systematically sorted out and constructed a complete evidentiary chain for the distinctiveness of the sound trademark and submitted a large amount of evidence to the court to prove that, through long-term publicity and use, the sound logo had established a corresponding relationship with Intel and was capable of distinguishing the source of goods. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ultimately fully adopted the Lusheng team’s arguments, held that the sound trademark did not fall under the circumstance of lack of distinctiveness and did not violate Article 11(1)(3) of the Trademark Law, and ordered the revocation of the challenged review decision on refusal.
Typical Significance
1. Filling a judicial gap and setting a benchmark for determining the distinctiveness of sound trademarks
Since the Trademark Law first brought sound trademarks under protection in 2014, only more than 40 sound trademarks have been registered, which is a very small number. Apart from this case, the only previous case in which a sound trademark was ultimately approved for registration through judicial review overturning a review decision on refusal was the Tencent QQ alert tone case, and there were very few judicial precedents for reference. The approval of Intel’s sound trademark for registration through judicial review is a valuable exploration of the current standards for approving the registration of sound trademarks.
2. Overcoming evidentiary difficulties and constructing an evidentiary system for acquired distinctiveness of sound trademarks
Sound trademarks differ from traditional visual trademarks in that they cannot be directly affixed to products or 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, Lusheng’s lawyers focused on the correspondence between the sound trademark and the product provider, constructing a three-in-one evidentiary chain linking the sound, the word mark and the product, supplemented by advertising evidence and consumer recognition evidence, thereby forming a logically rigorous and well-structured evidentiary system. They ultimately succeeded in proving that, through long-term publicity and use, the sound trademark had established a unique corresponding relationship with the plaintiff. This case provides a replicable and promotable practical path for evidence of acquired distinctiveness of sound trademarks.
3. Based on industry frontiers and opening up new fields of legal services for sound trademarks
Against the backdrop of rapid development of the mobile internet, sound trademarks, as dynamic identifiers, are more compatible with advanced network technologies than traditional word and device trademarks, and match the characteristics of large volume and high speed of online dissemination. They can even, to a certain extent, transcend geographical and language barriers and spread rapidly worldwide. The diversification of future marketing media will bring more attention and application to sound trademarks in indicating the source of goods or services. The successful experience in this case opens up greater space for the commercial application and value realization of sound trademarks in the internet era.
Acting for Enzafruit in a plant variety rights infringement dispute over Envy apples (variety Scilate)
Selected for
-
“International Cooperation Typical Case of the Year 2025” by the Beijing Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance
Previously selected for:
-
Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Seed Industry Intellectual Property Rights by People’s Courts (Fifth Batch, 2025) selected by the Supreme People’s Court
-
Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection by Gansu Courts (2025)
Case Brief
Lusheng assisted ENZAFruit in achieving a landmark victory in the final judgment rendered by the Supreme People’s Court, which upheld the first-instance judgment and awarded one of the highest damages in civil cases of infringement of plant variety rights in China, amounting to RMB 3.3 million.
During evidence collection, Lusheng conducted extensive on-site evidence collection in multiple orchards across China, covering both the sapling planting season and the fruit harvesting season. Ultimately, Lusheng collected and completed DNA analysis and testing of the necessary propagating materials, thereby proving the 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’ malice and serious infringing acts, decided to calculate punitive damages at twice the illegal income generated by the infringing acts. In the final judgment, the Supreme People’s Court upheld the previous judgment of the first-instance court, holding that the defendants’ illegal planting and sale of plant materials of the Scilate variety and apples harvested from the illegal materials seriously infringed ENZAFruit’s intellectual property rights. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court ordered the infringers to immediately cease all infringing acts, cut off the propagating materials and render them non-viable, so as to safeguard the right holder’s lawful rights and interests.
Typical Significance
1. The final damages of RMB 3.3 million in this case are rare in civil cases of infringement of plant variety rights in asexually reproduced plants in China. According to the results disclosed in the 2023 law enforcement inspection of the Seed Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the average amount of damages in such cases is about RMB 425,000, far lower than the amount awarded in this case.
2. The variety right holder in this case is a New Zealand enterprise, and the judgment demonstrates the people’s courts’ adherence to equal protection in accordance with the law. This case treated the sale of harvested materials as a natural extension of the production and propagation of propagating materials and, where the infringer mainly obtained illegal profits by selling harvested materials, took the profits from the sale of harvested materials as the basis for determining the amount of damages, providing an important reference for damages calculation in similar subsequent cases and further strengthening comprehensive protection of variety right holders. The cessation method supported in this case, namely cutting off the infringing propagating scions and then grafting other non-infringing scions, fully took into account the characteristics of perennial asexually reproduced crops, not only fully protecting the variety right holder’s interests, but also reasonably balancing the restoration of agricultural production and the avoidance of resource waste, thereby refining the cessation of
