Sports continue to push boundaries through innovation, and creativity continues to generate value through intellectual property. This year’s World Intellectual Property Day, with the theme “IP and Sports: Get ready for the next level,” once again reminds us that from technological innovation on the field to branding, design and cultural expression off the field, every leap forward in the world of sports is inseparable from the strong support of the intellectual property system.
Over the past five years, Lusheng Law Firm, in cooperation with its strategic partner Rouse, has continued to cultivate the sports-related field in depth, and a number of cases handled by the firm have been selected as national and local typical cases.
Acting for New Balance in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against Shenzhen Xinpingheng Sports Goods Co., Ltd. (New Boom) and others
Selected as
-
One of the 50 most influential cases (1995–2025) in intellectual property adjudication of Jiangsu courts serving and safeguarding high-quality economic and social development
-
Special First Prize for Excellent Judgments of Jiangsu Courts in 2021
-
Typical Case of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property of Suzhou IP Tribunal (2017–2021)
-
Top Ten Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property of 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”) was lawfully authorized to obtain the non-exclusive right to use the “NEW BALANCE” and “device” trademarks within the territory of China, and its footwear products adopt a trade dress design featuring the letter “N” on both sides of the shoes. Zheng Mouzhong, through establishing an overseas company, authorized Shenzhen Xinpingheng Company to mass-produce sports shoes bearing the “device” sign and using the letter “N” on both sides as trade dress, and promoted and sold them online and offline. Xin Niubailun Shoe Factory promoted and sold the accused infringing sports shoes on its Alibaba online store, claiming externally that it was 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 that falsely publicized honors of New Balance sports shoes, thereby engaging in false advertising. On this basis, New Balance China filed a lawsuit with 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, publicly threw the documents beside a police car. The court decided to impose fines ranging from RMB 100,000 to RMB 1,000,000 on several defendants. Upon trial, the court held that Shenzhen Xinpingheng Company, Xin Niubailun Shoe Factory, Bostak Company and others constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and therefore fully supported New Balance China’s claim for damages of RMB 10 million.
Typical Significance
This case is the first in Jiangsu Province in which an injunction was issued involving the unique trade dress of a well-known product, and the first case in which an interlocutory injunction covered the entire chain from prohibiting production and sales to prohibiting false advertising. Subsequently, judicial fines were imposed on the respondents for their refusal to comply with the interlocutory injunction. In terms of substance, the court made useful explorations in the refined calculation of the right holder’s actual losses and, by law, applied punitive damages, fully supporting the plaintiff’s claim of 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 Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property of Jiangsu Courts in 2018.
Unfair competition case concerning imitation of the trade dress of “New Balance” sports shoes
Selected as
-
Top Ten Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property of 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 in multiple effective judgments, including those of the Supreme People’s Court, as trade dress of a product with a certain influence. However, multiple entities including the defendants Niu Mou Company, Xin Mou Company, Sheng Mou Company and others, on a nationwide scale, produced and sold sports shoes bearing the “” sign on a large scale through online e-commerce platforms and offline physical stores (claiming to exceed 1,000 stores). The plaintiff considered that the defendants, by using without authorization a sign similar to the trade dress of its well-known products, acted with obvious subjective bad faith 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 the evidence of the scale of infringement and profits obtained by the defendants and constructed a rigorous evidentiary system for damages. The court fully adopted the submissions of counsel, holding that the accused infringing sign was similar to the “N” letter trade dress and sufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public, and ordered the defendant 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 in the amount of RMB 15 million. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, the defendant appealed, and the second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical Significance
1. Dual-track protection strategy successfully overcomes the defense based on registered trademarks
In response to the infringer’s defense that it was ostensibly lawfully using its registered trademark, the team innovatively adopted the approach under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, arguing that the “N” sign had already constituted the unique trade dress of a product with a certain influence. Through meticulous comparison of shoe designs and analysis of the overall visual effect, the team successfully demonstrated that the infringer deliberately highlighted the “N” sign to free-ride on New Balance’s goodwill, which was sufficient to cause consumer confusion and showed obvious subjective bad faith.
2. Determination of joint and several liability to ensure the effectiveness of judgment enforcement
In view of the integrated infringement chain formed through division of labor among multiple affiliated companies and key natural persons, the team conducted in-depth investigations and adduced sufficient 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 all defendants should bear 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 calculation of damages and comprehensive restoration of market order
Given the massive 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 actual profits obtained by the infringers 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 a significant market governance effect: the number of infringing stores dropped sharply from more than 1,000 to 38.
Acting for New Balance in an unfair competition dispute concerning the “N” letter trade dress of sports shoes against New Barlun (New Barlun) sports shoes
Selected as
-
Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone by the People’s Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai (2013–2023)
-
Second Prize for Excellent Cases of 2022 in the National Court System published by the Supreme People’s Court
-
Typical Cases of Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection by Shanghai Courts in 2022
-
Top Ten Typical Cases of Judicial Services and Safeguards for the “Dual-Zone Linkage” by Shanghai Pudong Court in the field of intellectual property
Case Brief
New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (“New Balance China”) was lawfully authorized to obtain the non-exclusive right to use the “NEW BALANCE” and “
” trademarks within the territory of China, and its footwear products adopt a trade dress design featuring the letter “N” on both sides of the shoes. Through long-term use and promotion, this trade dress has become closely associated with “New Balance” sports shoes and has become an important sign for identifying the source of goods. New Barlun (China) Co., Ltd. mass-produced and sold sports shoes bearing the “
” sign on both sides of the shoes, causing extensive market confusion. New Balance China therefore brought a lawsuit before the People’s Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai.
The defendant New Barlun Company argued that it lawfully enjoyed the exclusive right to use registered trademark No. 4236766 “
” and other registered trademarks. New Barlun Company’s use of its registered trademarks on the approved categories of goods complied with legal provisions and did not infringe upon the lawful rights or interests of others.
Upon trial, the Pudong Court held that the “N” trade dress on both sides of the plaintiff’s “New Balance” sports shoes had already formed “trade dress of a product with a certain influence” prior to the filing date (August 2004) of the defendant’s registered trademark No. 4236766. Although the sign used by New Barlun Company was its registered trademark, as a competitor in the same industry, it used, despite knowing that the “N” letter trade dress on both sides of the plaintiff’s “New Balance” sports shoes had a certain influence, a sign similar to that of the plaintiff in the same position on the same type of goods it produced. Its subjective fault of free-riding on the plaintiff’s goodwill and causing market confusion was obvious, and objectively it was sufficient to cause consumers to be confused or misled as to the source of the goods, thereby violating the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics and infringing the plaintiff’s prior rights and interests, thus constituting unfair competition. Accordingly, the court ordered New Barlun Company to cease its unfair competition acts against the “N” letter trade dress on both sides of New Balance China’s sports shoes, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 10.8 million, and publish a statement to eliminate the impact.
After the judgment, New Barlun Company, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, which, in the second instance, lawfully upheld the original judgment.
Typical Significance
This case involves a conflict of rights between the trade dress of a product with a certain influence and a registered trademark, and the issue to be discussed is whether the owner of an exclusive right to use a registered trademark is naturally free from fault when using its registered trademark on goods. The judgment in this case points out that every right has its boundaries, and trademark rights are no exception. Enjoyment of the exclusive right to use a trademark does not mean that the right holder has an absolute right to use the trademark.
The Anti-Unfair Competition Law is a law that maintains business ethics. When the legitimate interests protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law conflict with the rights to registered trademarks under the Trademark Law, the supreme rule of good faith should be followed. In such circumstances, in determining whether a market operator acts in good faith in civil and commercial activities, two rules should be followed: first, protection of prior rights and interests; and second, prevention of market confusion.
Based on the above reasoning, this case held that the defendant constituted unfair competition and awarded damages of RMB 10.8 million, attracting widespread attention in the industry. More than ten well-known media outlets, including CCTV, People’s Court Daily, China Youth Daily, The Paper, and China Intellectual Property Magazine, conducted in-depth reports on the case.
Acting for New Balance in an unfair competition dispute against a Tianjin footwear company, a Jiangxi apparel company and others
Selected as
-
China Business Law Journal’s Deals of the Year 2024 (Intellectual Property)
-
Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of Jiangxi Courts in 2023
Case Brief
Xin Mou Lun Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Xin Mou Lun Company”) was authorized to use, on a non-exclusive basis in China, the intellectual property rights related to New Balance brand products, including the New Balance 327 series sports shoes under the brand, which enjoy a high reputation, and was entitled to independently bring lawsuits against any acts infringing upon the rights and interests in the trade dress of such products with a certain influence. Jiangxi Han Mou Apparel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Han Mou Company”) was the operator of a certain brand flagship store on the Tmall platform, and a pair of sports shoes sold by that store used trade dress similar to that of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes. The packaging box and product certificate of conformity of the sports shoes indicated that the manufacturer was Tianjin Qi Mou Footwear Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Qi Mou Company”). Xin Mou Lun Company considered that Han Mou Company and Qi Mou Company and others constituted unfair competition by imitating the trade dress of another’s product with a certain influence, and that Xin Mou Lun Company had sent a lawyer’s letter to Qi Mou Company and others requesting them to cease the infringing and imitative acts, but Qi Mou Company and others refused to cease the infringement after receiving the lawyer’s letter and continued to produce and sell the accused infringing products, thereby constituting intentional repeated infringement with serious circumstances and should bear punitive damages. Accordingly, it requested the court to order Han Mou Company and Qi Mou Company and others to cease the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling RMB 3 million.
Upon trial, the court held that Qi Mou Company had imitated the trade dress of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes of Xin Mou Lun Company, which had a certain influence, and thus constituted unfair competition and should bear civil liability to cease the infringement and compensate for losses. As to the amount of compensation, the actual losses suffered by Xin Mou Lun Company due to the infringing acts could be determined by multiplying the sales volume of the infringing products by the right holder’s reasonable profit per product. According to the notarial certificate and background data provided by the Tmall platform, the sales volume of the accused infringing products was 4,924 pairs on the Pinduoduo platform and 13,668 pairs on the Tmall platform, totaling 18,592 pairs. Xin Mou Lun Company did not provide the profit margin of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes, but only submitted an audit report claiming that its operating profit margin in 2021 was approximately 13.54% and in 2022 approximately 16.89%. The court, at its discretion, determined the reasonable profit margin during the sales period of the accused infringing products to be 15%. In view of the contribution of the trade dress of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes to the sales volume and profit margin of the shoes as compared with trademarks, quality, raw materials and other factors, and taking into account the differences in potential consumer groups between the New Balance 327 series sports shoes and the accused infringing sports shoes due to differences in brand and pricing, the court, at its discretion, determined the contribution rate of the unique trade dress of the well-known product to be about 10%. The sales prices of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes included different price points such as RMB 579, RMB 719 and RMB 799. Taking into account discounts and promotions, the court, at its discretion, determined the actual selling price to be RMB 600. In summary, the actual losses suffered by Xin Mou Lun Company due to the infringing acts amounted to RMB 167,328 (18,592 pairs × RMB 600/pair × 15% × 10%). As the producer, Qi Mou Company should bear a higher duty of care. Although it claimed to have conducted sufficient market research and patent searches before research and development and production, it provided no evidence to prove this and, without authorization, produced and sold the accused infringing products, thus subjectively acting with intent to infringe. The sales volume and amount of the accused infringing products on the Tmall and Pinduoduo platforms were huge, and the circumstances were serious, satisfying the constitutive requirements for punitive damages. Therefore, taking the actual losses of Xin Mou Lun Company as the base for calculating punitive damages, the court applied one time punitive damages and determined that Qi Mou Company should bear punitive damages and reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder to stop the infringement totaling RMB 380,000. As Han Mou Company, as the seller, successfully raised the defense of lawful source, it did not bear liability for damages but was ordered to cease the infringement and pay Xin Mou Lun Company RMB 20,000 as reasonable expenses.
The first-instance court ruled that Qi Mou Company and Han Mou Company should cease the infringement; Qi Mou Company should compensate Xin Mou Lun Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling RMB 380,000; and Han Mou Company should pay Xin Mou Lun Company RMB 20,000 as reasonable expenses for rights protection. After the first-instance judgment was rendered, none of the parties filed an appeal.
Typical Significance
This case is a typical one distinguishing the different liabilities to be borne by producers and sellers and the different degrees of duty of care to be imposed. In this case, a higher duty of care was imposed on the producer, and its claim that it had conducted market research and patent searches before research and development and production was not accepted. The court supported the right holder’s request that the producer bear punitive damages, thereby severely cracking down on infringers at the source, curbing unfair competition acts of maliciously “free-riding on famous brands,” demonstrating the judicial orientation of strict protection of intellectual property rights, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of right holders, maintaining a fair and competitive market order, and contributing to the creation of a market-oriented, law-based and internationalized business environment.
Acting for Arc’teryx in a case involving multiple persons counterfeiting registered trademarks
Selected as
-
Typical Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights published by Jinan Procuratorates (2023)
Case Brief
On 13 November 2020, Xu Mou was criminally detained on suspicion of the crime of selling commodities bearing counterfeit registered trademarks. On 18 May 2021, the People’s Procuratorate of Lixia District, Jinan City, filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Lixia District, Jinan City, accusing Xu Mou of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. On 9 December 2021, the People’s Court of Lixia District, Jinan City, rendered Criminal Judgment (2021) Lu 0102 Xing Chu No. 219, finding that Xu Mou had sold counterfeit “Arc’teryx” branded clothing through Taobao, Weidian and other channels. Investigation revealed that from July 2019 to the time of the case, Xu Mou sold counterfeit trademark clothing involved in the case through Weidian in a total amount of more than RMB 1.99 million, and the public security authorities seized 4,773 pieces of clothing to be sold, with a total value of more than RMB 1.7 million, and the total amount of illegal business operations was more than RMB 3.7 million. Xu Mou was found guilty of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and was sentenced to four years’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine.
On the basis of the above facts, the right holder filed a civil action for trademark infringement against Xu Mou and He Moumou (Xu Mou’s wife) with Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, and applied to the People’s Procuratorate of Lixia District, Jinan City, for support in instituting the action. The People’s Procuratorate of Jinan City supported the action in this case.
Upon trial, Jinan Intermediate People’s Court ordered Xu Mou to compensate the right holder RMB 1 million for his trademark infringement. Both the right holder and Xu Mou, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, appealed to Shandong High People’s Court. The second instance was ultimately concluded by mediation between the parties, and in the mediation the parties did not dispute the facts found in the first-instance judgment, and Xu Mou and He Moumou jointly paid most of the amount of damages awarded in the first instance to the right holder.
Typical Significance
1. The procuratorate supported the institution of a civil action, actively exploring new models for intellectual property rights protection.
In this case, the defendant’s sales scale was large, and the consumer group affected was broad, endangering the public interest. Under such circumstances, the right holder actively communicated with the public prosecution authority in the related criminal case, and ultimately the procuratorate at the same level as the trial court participated in the trial of the civil case by way of supporting the institution of the action.
2. A typical case in which the right holder protected its intellectual property rights through both criminal punishment and civil remedies.
This case is a judicial rights protection action against trademark infringement in the production of clothing. Criminal punishment completely destroyed the entire infringement chain of “production–sales” and lawfully pursued the criminal liability of responsible persons at each stage. At the same time, through civil litigation, the right holder comprehensively claimed liability for infringement damages, thereby making up for economic losses. By balancing civil remedies for infringement and criminal liability for crimes, the case greatly deterred intellectual property infringement crimes in the market and maximized the effectiveness of brand rights protection.
Acting for Vans in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against a Guangzhou sports company and others
Selected as
-
Top Ten Foreign-related Intellectual Property Cases in Guangdong in 2021
Case Brief
Vans was founded in 1966 in Southern California, USA, by Paul Van Doren as an original extreme sports fashion brand, committed to developing originality while supporting board and wheel sports around the world. With skateboarding as its core, Vans integrates lifestyle, art, music and street fashion culture into Vans aesthetics, forming a distinctive symbol of youth culture and becoming a global brand recognized and welcomed by young extreme sports enthusiasts and trendsetters. After years of promotion, Vans’ “seagull line” skate shoes have gained extremely high reputation and goodwill. The defendants Wang Xiaolan, Deng Li and others, using registered trademarks obtained through preemptive registration as a cover, mass-produced and sold “woovans” brand sports shoes that were highly similar to the Vans brand, causing extensive consumer confusion and seriously damaging Vans’ exclusive right to use its registered trademarks. Ultimately, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the six defendants, including Wang Xiaolan and Deng Li, had jointly committed acts infringing Vans’ exclusive right to use its registered trademarks through the establishment of affiliated companies and other means, and should bear joint liability for infringement, and ordered the six defendants to jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling more than RMB 1 million.
Typical Significance
This case is a typical one in which malicious preemptive registration of a highly reputed trademark was used as a cover to carry out infringing acts. In this case, three natural persons established and controlled multiple companies to carry out infringing acts. These companies were ostensibly independent entities, but their shareholders and actual controllers included the three natural persons. The defendants cooperated with each other, using formally lawful preemptive registration of trademarks to enter various stores and shopping malls and massively sell infringing products, causing extensive consumer confusion and causing great damage to the trademark owner. Ultimately, by clarifying the potential connections between the natural persons and the corporate entities and demonstrating the attributable fault of the natural persons in using companies as tools to commit infringement and their subjective bad faith in maliciously preemptively registering trademarks to assist infringement, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that all natural persons and corporate entities should bear joint and several liability for the overall infringing acts.
