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. 

Sunny Su

Liping Xu

Recently, the list of the “Top 10 Typical Intellectual Property Cases by IP Economy 2025” was officially released. 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 achieving 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 in civil cases concerning infringement of new plant variety rights in China was awarded—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 from 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, as well as 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, cut off the propagating materials, and carry out deactivation 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 concerning infringement of new plant varieties of 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 approximately RMB 425,000, which is 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 adjudication result demonstrates 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 acts of producing and reproducing propagating materials, and, where the infringer primarily obtains illegal benefits through the sale of harvested materials, takes the sales profits 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 relief supported in this case—namely, requiring the infringer to cut off the infringing propagating scions and then graft other non-infringing variety scions—fully takes into account the characteristics of perennial asexually reproduced crops. It not only fully protects the interests of the variety right holder, but also reasonably balances the restoration of agricultural production and the avoidance of resource waste, thereby making a beneficial innovation and exploration in refining the forms of cessation of infringement in respect of variety rights.

Top 10 Typical Intellectual Property Cases by IP Economy 2025  

Carol Wang

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

Alice Hou

Siyan He

Lisa Lin

On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Guangdong Trademark Association, the Guangdong Trademark Association released the “Bay Area Light” List of Top 30 Typical Trademark Protection Cases over 30 Years. The case titled “Trademark Infringement Dispute between an International Luxury Brand and a Certain Individual”, 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 trademarks have repeatedly been 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 filed a lawsuit against Zhang Moumou for selling watches infringing its trademark rights. The parties reached a settlement agreement, under which Zhang Moumou undertook to cease the infringement, destroy infringing products in stock, pay compensation to the client, and expressly promised to pay punitive damages should he commit further infringing acts. However, Zhang Moumou failed to honor his commitments. Instead, he diverted traffic from the original infringing WeChat store to multiple WeChat accounts held by 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 an order that Zhang Moumou 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 People’s Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou Municipality held that: the trademark involved in the case enjoys a relatively high degree of reputation; after reaching a settlement in the previous lawsuit, Zhang Moumou did not cease the infringing acts but continued to seek illegal gains, 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 manifest, and the circumstances of infringement were serious; therefore, punitive damages should be applied. The court, in accordance with the law, obtained Zhang Moumou’s transaction details, calculated his sales amount during the period of infringement, and then, based on the average profit margin in the same industry, determined his infringing profits as the base for punitive damages, applying double punitive damages. The court ordered Zhang Moumou to compensate Company Ka 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 for “concealed infringement after settlement”</h3>
In this case, by applying for the retrieval of transaction records of multiple accounts held by Zhang Moumou and submitting similar case judgments as corroboration, our firm, on the basis of fully considering the well-known status of the trademark involved, effectively demonstrated his subjective malice in repeated infringement and the scale of the infringement. In response to Zhang Moumou’s defenses such as “fake transactions” and “payments unrelated to infringement,” our firm, through professional evidentiary analysis, proved that the main source of the payments was the sale of infringing products.
The court ultimately applied the rule on obstruction of evidence, taking the retrieved payment transaction records as the base, and, with reference to the profit margin in 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 strictly punishing concealed repeated infringement.
<h3>2. Innovating electronic data evidence collection to address the problem of concealed infringement</h3>
In response to the infringer’s use of multiple WeChat accounts of others and Alipay accounts for receiving payments 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, 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 protection for well-known trademarks</h3>
As a successful rights protection case involving an internationally renowned luxury brand, this case, from supervision over 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 model for intellectual property protection of similar luxury brands in China.

Lusheng’s trademark case selected as “Bay Area Light” 30-year TOP30 protection cases

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

Sophia Hou

Jingru Li

Leonie Wei

Real Yu

Ivy Xu

Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration released the “2025 Typical Cases of Administrative Protection of Intellectual Property Rights”. The case “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 Case Overview</h2>
The Scotch Whisky Association (the “Association”) discovered that a certain trading company in Shanghai had, in the course of promotion, sale, product identification and labeling of 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 geographical indication products.
Lusheng Law Firm, acting for the Association, filed an administrative complaint with the Shanghai Songjiang District Administration for Market Regulation, requesting that the authority, in accordance with the law, investigate and deal with the acts of the party concerned in unlawfully 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 a fine.
During the handling of the case, the Shanghai Songjiang District Administration for Market Regulation conducted a comprehensive verification of the facts throughout the entire chain, including product origin, labeling, bottling process and market circulation. With respect to difficult issues of law application such as bottling outside the place of origin and bottling in bonded zones, it carried out professional review and legal analysis strictly in accordance with the quality control standards for geographical indication products. Ultimately, it imposed administrative penalties in accordance with the law, including 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>
I. Basing on the Place-of-Origin Principle of Geographical Indications to Resolve New Types of Enforcement Disputes
This case closely centers on the core requirement of place of origin in the protection of geographical indications, and accurately responds to new types of industry disputes such as bottling outside the place of origin and bottling in bonded zones. It clearly defines 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 their application in complex scenarios.
&nbsp;
II. Focusing on Quality and Label Compliance Control to Create a Replicable Model of Administrative Protection
The enforcement authority, taking the quality requirements of geographical indication products as the core basis, conducted a comprehensive fact-finding and legal applicability assessment, thereby achieving accurate characterization of the unlawful use. This case provides referential experience for the application of administrative protection discretion standards for geographical indications and the improvement of case-handling procedures, which is conducive to further enhancing the professionalism and standardization of administrative protection of geographical indications, and to fostering a fair and orderly business environment and a sound intellectual property protection ecosystem. In this case, the Lusheng team, taking into account the specific circumstances, actively assisted the enforcement authority in making more refined determinations and dispositions of the relevant unlawful facts, thereby helping to strengthen compliance warnings to business operators and providing guidance to the industry.

The Lusheng‑represented case was selected as an NIPA 2025 IP administrative protection model case

Alice Yu

Recently, the Suzhou courts released the “2025 Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.” 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.” 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 initiated litigation. The Lusheng team conducted in-depth arguments around core issues such as the boundaries of 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 shape, should be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court found that the growing chairs sold by the defendant constituted unfair competition, and ordered the defendant 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, and the appeal was dismissed in the second instance, with the original judgment being upheld.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
I. 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 aesthetic appeal. Starting from the institutional logic of unfair competition, and through a thorough exposition of the connotation and extension of “trade dress,” the case clarifies that the trade dress of goods protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes “shape and structural trade dress.” From the perspective of the relationship between competition law and intellectual property law, it clarifies that the fact that a shape and configuration has been the subject of a patent application is not a necessary condition for denying 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 and aesthetic appeal.
&nbsp;
II. Separating the design layers of functionality and aesthetics, and precisely defining the boundaries of protection
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 shapes, dimensions, curves, or angles formed by the combination of these components, whereas these specific shapes, dimensions, curves, or angles are precisely the key elements of the trade dress design 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 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 protects the right holder’s unique contribution to the configuration of its product and the goodwill embodied in the product shape.

Lusheng represented case was selected as “Top 10 IP Judicial Protection Cases of Suzhou Courts 2025”

Ling Jin

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 “Zhi Qi Tong” Criminal Protection Cases on Intellectual Property. 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.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Case Overview</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 label stickers 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 label stickers and sell them to Zhao. Zhao, together 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 places, hired workers to affix the aforementioned trademark label stickers onto the kiwifruit, and sold them to the public via online stores. Rouse International, upon the right holder’s engagement, assisted in the collection and preservation of evidence of infringement and in the identification of counterfeit products. Upon review, it was ascertained that the number of registered trademark identifications manufactured and sold by the defendants Peng XX and Chen XX was 513,600 in total.
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. Rouse International, in collaboration with Lusheng Law Firm, continuously provided 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 filed an appeal, and the first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
1. Precise full-chain crackdown, building a closed loop for full-lifecycle protection of intellectual property
In this case, 513,600 counterfeit trademark identifications were seized, with a high degree of imitation accuracy, and they were 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;
2. Deep protection of the right holder’s right to participate in litigation, highlighting procedural justice and the status of the party
The right holder was deeply involved throughout the litigation process, from the recognition and identification of the infringing identifications to appearing in court and submitting legal opinions. Rouse International continuously provided professional legal support during the litigation, assisting the right holder in effectively exercising various litigation rights, fully reflecting the judiciary’s respect for the right holder’s status as a party and demonstrating the practical achievements of procedural justice in the criminal protection of intellectual property.
&nbsp;
3. Comprehensive application of criminal sanctions to build a long-term mechanism for recidivism prevention
The groundbreaking 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 an injunction. For the defendant whose principal business was label printing, while a suspended sentence was lawfully pronounced, it was expressly stipulated that the defendant was prohibited from engaging in production and business activities involving the manufacture and sale of registered trademark identifications during the probationary period, thereby preventing the risk of reoffending at the source and reflecting 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;
<h2>Rouse Case-handling Team</h2>
Gao Tingting
Senior Consultant
Rouse International
Email: cgao@rouse.com

Lusheng's represented case has been selected as Top 10 Cases of IP Criminal Protection by "ZHIQITONG (an IP service platform managed by SPP Third Branch and SFIA)"

Meryl Wang

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 applied for registration of the 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 prescribed in Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Trademark Law. Subsequently, Intel Corporation engaged Lusheng Law Firm to take full responsibility for formulating the litigation strategy and acting as counsel in this case, and instituted an action against the review of refusal decision. 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 volume of evidence to the court to demonstrate that, through long-term publicity 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 revoking the challenged review of refusal decision.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
I. Filling the Judicial Gap and Establishing a Benchmark for the Assessment of Distinctiveness of Sound Trademarks
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 by overturning a review of refusal decision through judicial review was the Tencent QQ alert tone case, and there are very few judicial precedents for reference. The fact that Intel’s sound trademark has ultimately been registered through judicial review constitutes a valuable exploration of the current standards for approval and registration of sound trademarks.
&nbsp;
II. Overcoming the Difficulties of Proof 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 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 mark and the products, supplemented by evidence of advertising and promotion and proof of consumer recognition, thereby forming a logically rigorous and well-structured evidentiary system. It was ultimately successfully demonstrated 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 scalable practical path for adducing evidence to prove acquired distinctiveness of sound trademarks.
&nbsp;
III. Standing at the Forefront of the Industry and Opening Up New Fields of Legal Services for Sound Trademarks
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 or device trademarks, and are better aligned with the characteristics of large volume and high speed of online dissemination. They can 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 represented case was selected as 2025 administrative litigation case by Beijing Trademark Association

Recently, the Wuxi courts released the “Top Ten Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in 2025.” The case of unfair competition involving the imitation of the trade dress of “New Balance” sports shoes, 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 rendered by the Supreme People’s Court and other courts as a product trade dress with a certain degree of influence. However, multiple entities including Niu某 Company, Xin某 Company, Sheng某 Company and others, produced and sold on a large scale sports shoes bearing the “<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-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 (which they claimed exceeded 1,000 in number). The plaintiff considered that the defendants, by unauthorized use of a sign similar to the trade dress of its well-known products, acted with obvious subjective malice and on a massive scale of infringement, 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 defendant to cease the infringement, destroy its 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 defendant filed an appeal, which was dismissed in the second instance, and the original judgment was upheld.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
I. Dual-track protection strategy successfully overcomes the registered trademark defense
In response to the infringer’s defense that it was ostensibly using its registered trademark 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 products with a certain degree of influence. Through meticulous comparison of shoe designs and analysis of the overall visual effect, the team successfully proved that the infringer deliberately highlighted the “N” sign to free-ride on the goodwill of New Balance, which was sufficient to cause consumer confusion and demonstrated obvious subjective malice.
&nbsp;
II. Determination of joint and several liability to ensure the effectiveness of judgment enforcement
With respect to the integrated chain of infringement 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 should bear joint and several liability, effectively blocking the infringers’ attempt to disperse liability through corporate structures, and significantly enhancing the enforceability of the judgment and the effectiveness of subsequent enforcement.
&nbsp;
III. Data-based calculation of damages and comprehensive restoration of market order
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 infringers’ actual profits 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 38.

Lusheng represented case was selected as “Top 10 IP Judicial Protection Cases of Wuxi Courts 2025”

<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 — bad-faith trademark squatting does not constitute a defense, full-chain liability enforcement secures RMB 2.5 million in damages

Ciara Huang

<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 — sale of goods destined for destruction constitutes infringement, Shanghai IP Court issues fivefold punitive damages on appeal

<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

Recently, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released the “Model Cases of Crimes Endangering Food and Drug Safety” .The case in which&nbsp;Lusheng Law Firm represented a well-known multinational health supplement company in handling a criminal matter involving multiple persons manufacturing and selling counterfeit and substandard products bearing counterfeit registered trademarks was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2>Case Handled by Lusheng</h2>
Representation of a well-known multinational health supplement company in a case involving multiple persons manufacturing and selling counterfeit and substandard products bearing counterfeit registered trademarks
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Case Summary</h2>
The right holder is a well-known multinational health supplement company. Since 2023, the defendant He, together with Guo, formed a criminal gang spanning multiple regions. Through the procurement of raw materials, commissioning of imitation production, filling and labeling, and online sales, they manufactured and sold on a large scale various counterfeit health supplements, including brands owned by the right holder, and sold them nationwide via e-commerce platforms. Among them, defendants Pang and Su were specifically responsible for key stages such as filling semi-finished products, labeling, and coding. By the time the case was uncovered, He and others had manufactured and sold more than 120,000 bottles of substandard health food, with sales exceeding RMB 8 million.
In September 2024, the Shanghai Railway Transport People’s Procuratorate instituted a public prosecution against defendants He and Guo for the crime of manufacturing and selling substandard products, and against 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 defendant He to fifteen years’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 4 million for the crime of manufacturing and selling substandard products; and sentenced 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, defendant Pang was sentenced to four years and six months’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 300,000; and defendant Su was sentenced to one year and four months’ fixed-term imprisonment and a fine of RMB 10,000. The judgment ordered all defendants to make a public apology 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 represented the right holder, assisting the law enforcement and judicial authorities in the prosecution of the criminal suspects and in the determination of conviction and sentencing.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
I. Achieving precise, full-chain crackdown and tiered handling of counterfeiting and sale of counterfeit products in the health supplement sector
The criminal chain in this case was long, with numerous links and many persons involved, covering core raw material supply, finished packaging material production, filling of counterfeit and substandard products, warehousing, shipping, and other stages of production and sales, and was characterized by a wide distribution of personnel scattered across various industries. The procuratorial organ and public security organ worked in close coordination, digging deeply from the downstream sales end to the upstream production source, comprehensively collecting key evidence, and thereby achieving full-chain destruction of the criminal network.
II. Promoting refined determination by judicial organs of the division of labor and responsibility within the criminal gang
In this case, the counterfeiting gang was tightly organized, with numerous stages from raw material procurement and imitation production to filling and labeling and online sales. With respect to key stages directly involving the commission of acts of counterfeiting registered trademarks, such as filling and labeling, for which Pang, Su and others were specifically responsible, the judicial organs, based on the relevant evidence, accurately determined that they 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.
III. Professional legal support facilitating full-chain crackdown on infringement and effective relief of rights
In the face of challenges such as the criminal gang’s destruction of electronic evidence and difficulties in determining the amount of the crime, the case-handling authorities adopted 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 the incidental civil public interest action and by promoting platform governance, required the infringers to bear responsibilities such as making public apologies and paying disposal costs, and led to the removal of the infringing products from shelves and the closure of the relevant online stores, thereby realizing a three-dimensional crackdown on the infringing acts from the criminal, civil, and social governance dimensions and comprehensively safeguarding the rights and interests of the right holder.
&nbsp;
<h2>Lusheng Case-handling Team</h2>
&nbsp;
FENG Guimei
Senior Lawyer, Lusheng Law Firm
Email: hfeng@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
XU Yaxin
Paralegal, Lusheng Law Firm
Email: ixu2@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented case selected for “Model Cases of Crimes Endangering Food and Drug Safety” by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate

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

In order to fully demonstrate the achievements and effectiveness of the Jiangsu courts in intellectual property adjudication in serving and safeguarding high-quality economic and social development, the Jiangsu courts have selected, from a vast number of judicial cases, the “Top 50 Most Influential IP Trial Cases in Support of High-Quality Economic and Social Development by Jiangsu Courts (1995–2025)” The case of New Balance v. Shenzhen Xinpingheng Sports Goods Co., Ltd. (New Boom) et al. concerning trademark infringement and unfair competition, in which&nbsp;Lusheng Law Firm acted as counsel, was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2>Brief Facts of the Case</h2>
New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (“New Balance China”) obtained, through lawful authorization, the non-exclusive right to use the “NEW BALANCE” and “&nbsp;<img src="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/media/f5kbumoa/image.png?mode=max&amp;width=27&amp;height=24" alt="" width="27" height="24">” trademarks within the territory of China, and adopted a trade dress design featuring the letter “N” on both sides of its footwear products. By establishing an overseas company, Zheng Mouzhong authorized Shenzhen Xinpingheng Company to manufacture on a large scale sports shoes bearing the “<img src="https://www.lushenglawyers.com.cn/media/radna3e5/image.png?mode=max&amp;width=42&amp;height=20" alt="" width="42" height="20">” sign and using the letter “N” as decoration on both sides, and to promote and sell such products online and offline. Xin Niubailun Shoe Factory promoted and sold the accused infringing sports shoes through its Alibaba online store, publicly 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 a large number of articles that falsely publicized honors of New Balance sports shoes by misappropriating them. On this basis, New Balance China filed a lawsuit with the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court. During the litigation, upon application, the court lawfully issued an interlocutory injunction, but several defendants refused to comply with the effective ruling and, when the court served the legal documents, threw the legal documents to the ground next to a police car in public. 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 upheld New Balance China’s claim for damages in the amount of RMB 10 million.
&nbsp;
<h2>Typical Significance</h2>
This case is the first in Jiangsu Province in which an injunction was issued involving the unique trade dress of a well-known commodity, and also the first case in which an interlocutory injunction covered the entire chain from prohibiting production and sales to prohibiting false advertising. Subsequently, the court imposed judicial fines on the respondents for their refusal to comply with the interlocutory injunction. In the substantive part, the court made a useful exploration in the refined calculation of the actual losses of the right holder, and applied punitive damages in accordance with the law, fully supporting the plaintiff’s claim of RMB 10 million. This case was also selected as one of the “Top 100 Excellent Judgments of Courts Nationwide (First Session),” one of the “Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts in 2018,” and one of the “Top 10 Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Jiangsu Courts in 2018.”

Lusheng represented case selected among the “Top 50 Most Influential IP Trial Cases in Support of High-Quality Economic and Social Development” by Jiangsu Courts (1995–2025)

<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

Dante Fan

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

In recent years, the Guangdong courts have fully leveraged the adjudicatory function of intellectual property trials, adhered to the concept of strict protection, and lawfully increased the intensity of judicial damages awards to ensure that right holders obtain full and adequate compensation and that malicious infringers pay the price. On 17 July, the Guangdong High People’s Court released a batch of typical cases on punitive damages for intellectual property rights. The case in which Lusheng Law Firm acted as "Model Cases of Punitive Damages for Intellectual Property Infringement Released by the Guangdong High People's Court 2025”.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Selected Involving Lusheng</h2>
Acting for an international luxury brand in a trademark infringement dispute against an individual
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</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 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 for selling watches infringing its trademark rights, and the parties reached a settlement agreement. Zhang undertook to cease the infringement, destroy the infringing products in stock, and pay compensation to the client, and expressly undertook that, should he commit further infringing acts, he would pay punitive damages. However, Zhang failed to honor his undertakings. Instead, he diverted traffic from the original infringing WeChat store of the client to multiple WeChat accounts of himself and related persons, 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 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 held that: the trademark involved in the case enjoys a relatively high reputation; after reaching a settlement in the previous litigation, Zhang 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 in an attempt to evade liability for infringement. His subjective intent was manifestly malicious, and the circumstances of the infringement were serious, so punitive damages should be applied. After lawfully obtaining Zhang’s transaction details, the court calculated his sales amount during the period of infringement and, based on the average profit margin of the industry, determined his infringing profits as the base for punitive damages, and applied punitive damages at twice that base. The court ordered Zhang to compensate Company K for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses in an amount exceeding RMB 720,000.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>1. Successfully overcoming obstacles to the application of punitive damages and establishing a benchmark judgment for “concealed infringement after settlement”</h3>
In this case, by applying for the retrieval of transaction records for multiple accounts of Zhang 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 Zhang’s defenses such as “fake transactions” and “payments unrelated to the infringement,” our firm, through professional evidence analysis, demonstrated that the main source of the payments he received was the sale of infringing products.
The court ultimately applied the rule on obstruction of evidence, took the retrieved payment records as the base, referred to the industry’s average profit margin, and applied punitive damages at twice that amount, thereby 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.
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">2. Innovating electronic data evidence collection models to address the challenge of concealed infringement</h3>
In view of the infringer’s use of multiple WeChat accounts of others and Alipay accounts for payment collection and other 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, thereby providing a replicable rights protection solution for electronic data evidence collection and damages calculation in similar cases.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. Improving full-chain judicial protection for well-known trademarks</h3>
As a successful rights protection case for an internationally renowned luxury brand, this case, from supervision over 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 protection efficiency of the right holder and serving as a model for intellectual property protection of similar luxury brands in China.

Lusheng represented case selected as a "Model Cases of Punitive Damages for Intellectual Property Infringement Released by the Guangdong High People's Court 2025”

Jiabin Wang

Jenney Zhang

In order to further publicize the achievements in combating infringement and piracy and to give full play to the exemplary and guiding role of typical cases, on 1 August, the National Copyright Administration and the National Office Against Pornography and Illegal Publications selected the “Top 10 National Anti-Piracy Cases of 2024 Announced by the National Copyright Administration of China” from copyright cases lawfully concluded in relevant regions in 2024. The case in which Lusheng Law Firm represented a world-renowned entertainment company in handling a copyright infringement case involving multiple individuals in Xuzhou who circumvented technological protection measures was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Selected Involving Lusheng</h2>
Representation of a world-renowned entertainment company in a copyright infringement case involving multiple individuals in Xuzhou who circumvented technological protection measures
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Description</h2>
Ten individuals, developed auxiliary cracking programs for game consoles, processed and manufactured devices for cracking game verification systems, installed such devices on handheld game consoles and sold them for profit, with the amount of illegal business operations being extraordinarily large. Lusheng Law Firm, acting for the right holder, assisted the public security authorities, the procuratorate and the court by providing legal opinions and promoting the progress of the case.
In May 2022, the Jiawang Sub-Bureau of the Xuzhou 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 in accordance with the law for the crime of copyright infringement. In November 2024, the People’s Court of Xuzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone, Jiangsu Province, convicted Li XX and the other nine defendants of the crime 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 sentences suspended, and imposed fines ranging from RMB 11 million to RMB 1.5 million. Some defendants subsequently appealed to the Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, which, after trial, decided to uphold the original judgment.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
I. The right holder’s first criminal judgment involving “devices for damaging or circumventing technological measures”
In the course of handling the case, the attorneys actively cooperated with the public security authorities, the procuratorate and the court in explaining the technical issues involved in the case so as to resolve technical difficulties. They successfully secured the characterization of the conduct involved in this case, namely “providing devices primarily used to damage technological measures,” as the criminal conduct of “damaging or circumventing technological measures” under the crime of copyright infringement. This case constitutes the first criminal judgment obtained by the right holder in China targeting “devices for damaging or circumventing technological measures,” thereby laying a solid foundation for the right holder’s subsequent rights protection.
&nbsp;
II. Substantive participation in the case and provision of opinions on the technologies involved and the application of law
At the stage of examination for prosecution, the attorneys proactively applied for access to the case file, reviewed the case, and submitted legal opinions to the procuratorial authorities. The procuratorial authorities adopted the attorneys’ opinions and confirmed the legal characterization of “devices for damaging or circumventing technological measures.” At the trial stage, the attorneys appeared in court as litigation representatives and presented opinions on the technical issues and copyright-related matters involved in the case, thereby achieving protection of the right holder’s copyright.
Given the large number of defendants, the huge amount of money involved, and the complex technical and legal issues in this case, the effective participation of the attorneys ensured the protection of the right holder’s litigation rights and also guaranteed the impartial adjudication of the case by the judicial authorities.

Lusheng represented case selected as one of the "Top 10 National Anti-Piracy Cases of 2024 Announced by the National Copyright Administration of China"

Lusheng Editor

In recent years, in accordance with the unified deployment of the Ministry of Public Security, public security authorities nationwide have continuously and thoroughly carried out special operations such as “Kunlun,” strengthened criminal protection of intellectual property rights, and, in accordance with the law, cracked down on various crimes of infringement and counterfeiting. These efforts have played an important role in providing services and support for empowering innovation-driven development, optimizing the business environment, promoting cultural prosperity, and safeguarding people’s livelihood and safety. On April 25, the Ministry of Public Security released a number of Typical Cases of Public Security Authorities Strengthening Criminal Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and Providing Services and Safeguards for High-Quality Development. The case of the manufacture and sale of counterfeit licensed products handled by Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner Rouse International as a "Model Case of Criminal IP Protection by the Ministry of Public Security" .
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
Lusheng Law Firm, in cooperation with its strategic partner Rouse International, 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 schoolbags. Upon investigation, it was found that criminal suspects Qin Mouhong and Zeng Mouying, among others, had long been engaged in the production and sale of counterfeit children’s schoolbags and, through cross-border e-commerce platforms and offline wholesale channels, had exported large quantities of infringing products to countries along the “Belt and Road.”
In this case, the criminal group manufactured and sold large quantities of counterfeit children’s schoolbags 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. After discovering the infringing activities of this criminal group, the team immediately launched an in-depth investigation, accurately identified the production, storage, and sales sites, assisted the client in preserving key evidence, and promoted the filing and investigation of the case by the public security authorities.
In May 2024, based on clues reported by the right holder enterprise, the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and its Chaoyang Sub-Bureau solved the case, arrested 22 criminal suspects, destroyed 6 sites involved in the case, dismantled 3 criminal groups, and seized nearly 10,000 counterfeit children’s schoolbags on site, with the amount involved exceeding RMB 10 million.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
This case is the largest case involving counterfeiting of the right holder’s registered trademarks handled by Lusheng Law Firm and Rouse International in assisting the right holder 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. The large-scale export of such substandard children’s products to countries along the Belt and Road not only hinders the high-quality development of the Belt and Road Initiative, but also damages the reputation and goodwill 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.

Lusheng secured a case that was selected as a "Model Cases of Criminal IP Protection by the Ministry of Public Security”

On the occasion of “World Intellectual Property Day 4·26”, the case jointly handled by Lusheng Law Firm and its strategic partner Rouse International as agents for Zespri International Limited of New Zealand, concerning the resale of illegal trademark labels and counterfeit fruit, was selected as one of several typical cases, including: the typical cases of the “Safeguarding Intellectual Property Rights” campaign published by the Shanghai Administration for Market Regulation, and the "Top 10 Cases of IP Criminal Protection by ZHIQITONG (an IP service platform managed by Shanghai IP Administration)" &nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
Henan Zhi某 Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhi某 Company”) was established in March 2022 and is engaged in various printing businesses. From April 2023, during the joint operation of Zhi某 Company by Mu某某, Lü某某 and Cui某某, Mu某某 accepted the commission of defendants Hai某某 and Chang某 to illegally print counterfeit “Zespri” and other internationally renowned fruit trademark labels, thereby turning ordinary fruit into so‑called “high‑end imported products”. The total number of counterfeit labels involved in the case exceeded 9 million. The infringing products were widely distributed through e‑commerce platforms, seriously damaging the brand value of the right holder and the rights and interests of consumers.
In November 2023, Rouse International, together with its client, launched a monitoring project targeting counterfeit goods and labels on e‑commerce platforms. Through big data analysis and assessment, it identified online stores selling Zespri trademark labels without authorization and successfully pinpointed online sellers with abnormally high sales records. Rouse International assisted the client in promptly reporting the case to the public security authorities. Through meticulous evidence collection, conclusive evidence was obtained that these sellers were shipping large quantities of illegal labels to multiple fruit merchants in Shanghai, thereby cracking the criminal gang engaged in reselling counterfeit fruit labels. In the course of investigating this case, the public security authorities not only successfully dismantled the criminal group headed by Zhi某 Company and Mu某某 and Hai某某, but also carried out enforcement cooperation jointly with the Shanghai Administration for Market Regulation. Through joint enforcement actions, the two authorities precisely targeted downstream merchants in the regions involved who used counterfeit Zespri trademark labels to disguise ordinary fruit as branded kiwifruit for high‑priced sales. The market regulation authorities, in accordance with the law, conducted centralized enforcement inspections of the infringing business premises involved and issued administrative penalty decisions. Lusheng Law Firm, as Rouse International’s strategic partner, represented the client in following up on the criminal proceedings of the case and substantively represented the trademark right holder in the criminal procedure. Ultimately, in November 2024, the People’s Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai, rendered its judgment, convicting eight defendants and Zhi某 Company of the crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark labels. Principal offender Hai某某 was sentenced to three years and three months’ fixed‑term imprisonment, and the total amount of fines and confiscations in the case exceeded RMB 150,000.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
<h3>1. Assisting Cross‑regional Enforcement Cooperation to Combat the Counterfeiting Supply Chain in an All‑round Way</h3>
The team worked closely with the Shanghai Public Security Bureau and market regulation authorities. After identifying online infringement clues through big data monitoring, it promoted cross‑regional joint enforcement actions, successfully uncovering and dismantling a complete counterfeiting industrial chain spanning multiple regions including Henan and Shanghai. The case involved the entire chain of criminal activities, including illegal printing, online sale of counterfeit trademark labels, and offline distribution of counterfeit fruit. More than 4 million infringing labels were seized, and a total of over 9 million labels were sold. Both the scale of infringement and the difficulty of handling the case are rare in recent years.
&nbsp;
<h3>2. Clarifying the Legal Application Standards for “Integrated Production and Sales” Infringement</h3>
In view of the “integrated production and sales” conduct in this case, where the defendants both illegally manufactured trademark labels and sold the same counterfeit labels, the team, drawing on judicial interpretations and practical experience, put forward the professional opinion that “heavier penalties should be imposed based on the quantity of infringing labels”. The court ultimately adopted this recommendation and clarified that such unlawful conduct should be convicted under the crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark labels, and that penalties should be appropriately increased within the statutory sentencing range. This adjudicative standard provides an important reference for similar cases and strengthens the crackdown on industrial‑chain‑type trademark infringement.
&nbsp;
<h3>3. Establishing a Model for Enterprises’ Full‑process Rights Protection</h3>
In this case, the team fully played a bridging role by assisting law enforcement authorities in securing electronic chains of evidence and providing legal support on key issues such as the characterization of the infringing acts and sentencing. The successful conclusion of the case not only reflects the determination of Chinese law enforcement authorities to protect intellectual property rights, but also provides right holders with a full‑process rights protection model of “monitoring and detection – administrative investigation and punishment – criminal accountability”, which has important reference value for multinational enterprises’ rights protection in China.

Lusheng represented cases selected as typical cases in the "Top 10 Cases of IP Criminal Protection by ZHIQITONG (an IP service platform managed by Shanghai IP Administration)"  

Baron Wang

Today, under the guidance of the Changning District Intellectual Property Administration of Shanghai and the Changning District Justice Bureau of Shanghai, and hosted by the Changning District Intellectual Property Association of Shanghai, with the co-organization of the Intellectual Property Committee of the Shanghai Bar Association and the Changning District Shangning Legal Mediation Service Center of Shanghai, the “New Quality Driving Force, Intelligent Future” 4·26 Intellectual Property Forum was successfully held. During the event, the list of “Outstanding IP Cases 2025 by Shanghai Changning IP Association” was released.Lusheng Law Firmwas honored to be selected for its representation of a certain internationally renowned energy-saving sanitary ware brand owner in the second-instance case concerning a dispute over infringement of design patent right brought against it.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
In October 2023, a natural person, Mr. Kuang, filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court for infringement of design patent right, alleging that an internationally renowned energy-saving sanitary ware brand company (hereinafter referred to as the “Well-known Sanitary Ware Brand”) had infringed his design patent right in respect of a certain pull-out faucet product, and requested that the court order the sanitary ware brand company to immediately cease the infringing acts and compensate for losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 200,000. Mr. Kuang notarized the online shops and webpages selling the accused infringing products on JD.com, Taobao and Pinduoduo platforms, and conducted notarized purchase and evidence collection for products sold by some of the shops.
As an internationally renowned energy-saving sanitary ware brand, it enjoys a very high reputation in the global sanitary ware industry and has neither the need nor the possibility to copy others’ design patents. In the first instance, the sanitary ware brand company submitted on its own initiative an appraisal opinion on the accused infringing products, civil judgments against certain infringing shops on Taobao, online infringement complaint records and other evidence. This evidence preliminarily demonstrated that the accused infringing products were not produced, sold or offered for sale by the sanitary ware brand company itself. However, in June 2024, on the basis of finding that products sold by some shops were counterfeit products bearing the brand of the sanitary ware brand company, the court of first instance, without determining whether products sold by other shops were counterfeit products, directly held the sanitary ware brand company liable for ceasing infringement and for paying damages of RMB 50,000.
After the first-instance judgment, the Well-known Sanitary Ware Brand filed an appeal with the Shanghai High People’s Court and engaged Lusheng Law Firm to act as its counsel in this case. The focal point in dispute in this case was whether the internationally renowned energy-saving sanitary ware brand company had committed acts infringing the natural person’s design patent right at issue. In the second instance, the attorneys of Lusheng supplemented and submitted a large volume of evidence, including the sanitary ware brand company’s infringement complaint records against shops on platforms such as Taobao and Pinduoduo, cease-and-desist letters sent, civil judgments in lawsuits it had initiated, the appearances of all pull-out faucet products manufactured and sold by the sanitary ware brand, and evidence showing that numerous shops on the market were counterfeiting the well-known brand in selling the accused infringing products. This successfully convinced the judges that the negative fact that the client had not produced or sold the accused infringing products had reached a high degree of probability. In January 2025, the Shanghai High People’s Court rendered its second-instance judgment, overturning the first-instance judgment, dismissing all of Mr. Kuang’s claims, and ordering him to bear all case acceptance fees for both the first and second instances.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
1. After purchasing products bearing the trademark of the internationally renowned energy-saving sanitary ware brand owner from an e-commerce platform, the natural person, Mr. Kuang, brought a lawsuit against the brand owner for infringement of his design patent right. In fact, the products purchased by Mr. Kuang were counterfeit products bearing the registered trademark of the brand owner. The brand owner received a court summons without cause and was forced to participate as a defendant in a dispute over infringement of design patent right, and was held liable for infringement in the first instance. This was an undeserved misfortune and extremely unreasonable for the brand owner. However, in the current context of rampant counterfeit products bearing various brand owners’ registered trademarks, the brand owner’s experience is somewhat representative.
2. In the context of an unfavorable first-instance judgment rendered by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court against the sanitary ware brand company, the second instance achieved a reversal against the odds, with the Shanghai High People’s Court fully supporting the appeal requests raised by the brand owner. The purpose of this case is to prevent right holders from bearing legal liability for infringement of others’ lawful rights and interests by counterfeit products due to their failure to discover in a timely manner that their trademarks have been counterfeited, or due to objective reasons such as delayed or unsuccessful enforcement actions. This is of great significance for protecting the lawful rights and interests of intellectual property right holders, maintaining normal market order, enhancing the innovative vitality of market entities, and strengthening confidence in China’s intellectual property system.
3. In the second-instance proceedings, the sanitary ware brand company, through argumentation and evidence production, successfully convinced the judges that it had not produced or sold products infringing the plaintiff’s design patent right, thereby effectively avoiding bearing extremely unreasonable infringement liability. The final judgment forcefully safeguarded the lawful rights and interests of the sanitary ware brand company as a company operating with integrity and in compliance with laws and regulations in the Chinese market, effectively avoided unwarranted economic losses, and protected the reputation of the sanitary ware brand as a century-old well-known brand. This case is of referential value for brand owners in proving the establishment of the negative fact that they do not produce or sell infringing products.
&nbsp;
————Case-handling Team————
QIAO Rongde, Senior Partner, Lusheng Law Firm
QIAO Rongde is a seasoned expert in the practice and research of intellectual property law in China, with over 24 years of practice experience. She was awarded the renowned Max-Planck Scholarship in her early years and later obtained a Doctor of Laws degree in Intellectual Property Law from Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany. She has extensive experience in the fields of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and unfair competition, and her clients span industries such as technology, electronics, telecommunications, chemicals, daily chemicals, pharmaceuticals, media and entertainment, fashion, and sports. Ms. Qiao has represented a large number of cutting-edge and complex cases, including multiple annual leading cases selected by, among others, the Supreme People’s Court. Ms. Qiao has been recommended by numerous international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including Managing IP, World Trademark Review, IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), and Who’s Who Legal, and has been listed in rankings such as “IPHouse: Top 50 Outstanding IP Lawyers in China” and “IAM Global Leaders”. She actively participates in the drafting and revision of laws related to intellectual property in China and currently serves as a council member of the China Intellectual Property Law Association.
Email: sqiao@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
WANG &nbsp;Hui, Senior Associate, Head of Administrative Litigation Team, Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
WANG Hui has profound experience in the practice of intellectual property law, with her work covering trademarks, unfair competition, copyrights and design patents. She is particularly adept at trademark administrative litigation, such as handling issues involving recognition of well-known trademarks, protection of prior rights and cross-class protection. She has represented numerous cutting-edge cases, several of which have been recognized by courts as typical cases, and sheparticipated in handling a trademark administrative dispute case that was selected by the Supreme People’s Court as one of the “2018 Typical Intellectual Property Cases”.
Email: mwang3@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
WANG Shengjian, Associate, Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
WANG Shengjian has handled numerous types of intellectual property cases, including but not limited to trademark infringement, unfair competition, copyrights and design patents. He serves many world-renowned enterprises whose businesses cover industries such as media and entertainment, automobiles, sanitary ware, apparel and food. He has represented multiple cutting-edge cases, one of which was selected as one of the “Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection in Shanghai in 2019”, and several of his cases have obtained recognition of well-known trademarks from the Beijing High People’s Court and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
Email: bwang@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented case selected as a "Outstanding IP Cases 2025 by Shanghai Changning IP Association”

In recent years, in accordance with the unified deployment of the Ministry of Public Security, public security authorities nationwide have continuously and thoroughly carried out special operations such as “Kunlun,” strengthened criminal protection of intellectual property rights, and lawfully cracked down on various crimes of infringement and counterfeiting, thereby playing an important supporting role in empowering innovation-driven development, optimizing the business environment, promoting cultural prosperity, and safeguarding people’s livelihood and safety. On 25 April, the Ministry of Public Security released a batch of typical cases of public security authorities strengthening criminal protection of intellectual property rights and serving and safeguarding high-quality development. The case of production and sale of pirated toys by Yang Mouchan and others handled by Lusheng Law Firm on behalf of a certain internationally renowned toy and entertainment group was honorably selected as a "Model Case of Criminal IP Protection by the Ministry of Public Security" .
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
The public security authorities in Shandong cracked the case of production and sale of pirated toys by Yang Mouchan and others. In June 2024, based on clues reported by the right holder enterprise, the public security authorities in Heze, Shandong, solved the case, arrested 29 criminal suspects, destroyed 7 criminal dens, and seized on site more than 100,000 pieces of pirated toys, involving an amount of more than RMB 76 million. Investigation revealed that since November 2019, the criminal suspect Yang Mouchan and others had registered multiple companies and massively produced pirated toys, copying the design of product outer packaging, printing assembly instructions, and, after packaging, selling them externally through e-commerce online stores and physical shops in small commodity markets.
Lusheng Law Firm assisted the client and the public security authorities in handling this case.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
This case is another major case of cracking down on the manufacture and sale of pirated toys in which Lusheng assisted the right holder and the Shandong public security authorities. The significance of this case lies not only in the extraordinarily high amount involved, but also in the full-chain crackdown and the cutting off of the cross-border supply chain of infringing products. In this case, our firm assisted the public security authorities in uncovering the entire network for designing and manufacturing pirated toys. In addition to the persons in charge and key managers of the factories manufacturing pirated toys, the designers of the pirated toys, as well as downstream distributors responsible for wholesale, retail, and export, were also arrested, resulting in a comprehensive and thorough crackdown on the entire infringement ecosystem. The infringing products in this case were exported by traders to multiple countries in Southeast Asia, Europe, and other regions. This crackdown cut off the export routes of the infringing products and also helps to establish internationally China’s image as a country that protects intellectual property rights.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case-handling Team</h2>
WANG &nbsp;Shan, Head of the Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice, Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Wang Shan is a distinguished expert in the field of intellectual property protection. Her practice covers trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade names, and unfair competition, and she has accumulated over 20 years of practical experience. She serves numerous world-renowned companies, mostly from the media and entertainment, sports, fashion and luxury goods, automotive, technology, chemical, and restaurant chain industries. She has successfully represented many dispute cases with extensive social impact and high-value compensation cases in the tens of millions of RMB. Many of these cases have repeatedly been selected as “Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts” released by the Supreme People’s Court and as annual typical cases by courts at various levels, and have been included in lists such as “QBPC: Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of the Year” and “China Business Law Journal: Deals of the Year.”Ms. Wang has been widely recognized by many international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including Managing IP, Benchmark Litigation, World Trademark Review, IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), among others, and has been listed in rankings such as “Managing IP: Top 250 Women in IP Worldwide.”
Email: cwang@lushenglawyers.co
&nbsp;
FENG Guimei, Senior Lawyer, Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Feng Guimei joined Lusheng in 2008 and has worked in the field of intellectual property for more than ten years, with extensive practice experience. She is adept at designing and managing intellectual property enforcement projects. As a senior intellectual property lawyer, Ms. Feng provides overall intellectual property protection strategies, brand protection consulting, and litigation legal services for numerous world-leading enterprises in industries such as toys, sports brands, and luxury goods. Ms. Feng has also represented and prevailed in various types of litigation cases involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, and copyright infringement.
Email: hfeng@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented case selected as a "Model Cases of Criminal IP Protection by the Ministry of Public Security”

<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

On 24 April, the Supreme People’s Court released the “Model Cases of IP Criminal Protection by the Supreme People's Court”&nbsp;The Supreme Court published a total of nine typical cases, among which two cases handled by Lusheng Law Firm were selected, including: the case concerning counterfeiting the “LEGO” service trademark handled on behalf of the LEGO Group, and the case concerning counterfeiting registered trademarks by Lu Moufa and others handled on behalf of NBC Universal.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">01 </h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Case Handled on Behalf of the LEGO Group Concerning Counterfeiting the “LEGO” Service Trademark&nbsp;</h2>
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Brief Facts of the Case</h3>
<img src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/fakj5fie/img_4878167290449895350_image.png" alt="" width="500" height="216.63346613545818">
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Typical Significance</h3>
The Amendment (XI) to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China revised Article 213 of the Criminal Law to bring acts of counterfeiting registered service trademarks within the scope of criminal regulation, thereby strengthening the criminal protection of registered trademarks. In this case, the educational and training services provided by the defendant entity were determined to be the same type of services as those designated for use under the right holder’s registered service trademark, and the training fees collected by the defendant entity were used as the basis for establishing criminal liability, which is consistent with the provisions of the Criminal Law. The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, in light of the characteristics of the service industry and other practical circumstances, further clarifies the criteria for determining “the same type of service,” provides that the amount of illegal gains shall serve as the threshold for establishing the crime of counterfeiting a registered service trademark, and further clarifies that service fees collected by the perpetrator and the like constitute illegal gains.
This case has also been selected as one of the Top Ten Typical Cases of Crimes Involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights by the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai and the Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate, one of the Outstanding Transactions (Dispute Resolution and Investigation Cases) of 2022 by Business Law, one of the National Typical Intellectual Property Cases of the People’s Courts for 2021, one of the Top Ten Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Shanghai Courts in 2021, and one of the Typical Cases on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Procuratorial Organs to Safeguard Innovation-Driven Development (announced in 2022) selected by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate.
&nbsp;
———— Case-handling Team ————
WANG Shan&nbsp;
Director of the Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
cwang@lushenglawyers.com
HOU Juanjuan
Head of Guangzhou Litigation Team
ahou@lushenglawyers.com
FENG Guimei
Senior Lawyer
hfeng@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">02 </h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Case Handled on Behalf of NBC Universal Concerning the Manufacture and Sale of Counterfeit Universal Studios Licensed Products</h2>
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Brief Facts of the Case</h3>
From November 2019 to August 2022, without the permission of the registered trademark right holder, the defendants, including Lu Moufa, commissioned others to produce trademark logos such as “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS,” and, by means of self-processing, sewing and labeling, manufactured and produced Universal Studios Harry Potter products such as wizard robes, scarves and ties bearing the aforesaid trademark logos for sale, with an amount of illegal business operations exceeding RMB 11.25 million. The public security authorities seized 25,730 pieces of goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks and 72,550 items including hangtags, neck labels and washing labels at the premises operated by Lu Moufa.
The People’s Procuratorate of Tongzhou District, Beijing, charged the defendants, including Lu Moufa, with the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and instituted a public prosecution before the People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing. Upon trial, the People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, held that the registered trademark right holder had registered trademarks such as “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS,” and that the addition of elements lacking distinctive features after “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS” in the alleged infringing logos did not affect the manifestation of the distinctive features of the registered trademarks, and therefore such logos constituted “identical trademarks.” As Lu Moufa and others, without the permission of the registered trademark owner, used trademarks identical to the registered trademarks on the same kind of goods, they all constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and were sentenced accordingly. Lusheng Law Firm represented NBC Universal in assisting the procuratorate and the court by providing professional legal advice and promoting the progress of this case.
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Typical Significance</h3>
In order to further combat crimes of counterfeiting registered trademarks and to unify and clarify the criteria for determining “identical trademarks,” the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights provides clear criteria for determining identical trademarks. In this case, the alleged infringing logos added elements lacking distinctive features, which did not affect the manifestation of the distinctive features of the registered trademarks, and therefore should be determined as trademarks identical to the registered trademarks, thereby highlighting the concept of strict protection of intellectual property rights.
This case has also been selected as: one of the Top Ten Criminal Cases on Intellectual Property Protection for 2023–2024 by the Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC), the Best Cooperation Case (Offline Cooperation) of the 4th AACA (Alibaba Anti-Counterfeiting Alliance) Zhi Ying Awards, and one of the Ten Typical Cases Released by Public Security Organs on Strengthening Criminal Protection of Intellectual Property Rights to Support Comprehensive Innovation.
&nbsp;
———— Case-handling Team ————
WANG Shan&nbsp;
Director of the Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
cwang@lushenglawyers.com
CHENG Chen
Paralegal
echeng@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented multiple cases selected as "Model Cases of IP Criminal Protection by the Supreme People's Court”

Xing Chang

Recently, the Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate released the “Model Cases of IP Protection by the People’s Procuratorate of Beijing 2024”. The cases handled by Lusheng Law Firm, namely “The copyright infringement case against Li handled on behalf of a world-renowned entertainment company” and “The case of counterfeiting registered trademarks and selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks involving Liu and 11 others handled on behalf of an internationally renowned film and entertainment company”, were honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">01&nbsp;</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Representation of a world-renowned entertainment company in the copyright infringement case against Li</h2>
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Brief Case Description</h3>
The right holder is a world-renowned entertainment company. Li operated a shop selling electronic products such as game consoles and software. In the course of business, Li discovered methods to crack game consoles and obtain games for free, and then began to study how to circumvent the technical protection measures set by the right holder in order to obtain games free of charge. Li purchased a large number of cracking chips and disassembled and reassembled game consoles at home, soldering the chips onto the consoles to achieve cracking. Li subsequently sold cracked game consoles through an online store, with a very large sales amount.
Lusheng Law Firm, acting for the right holder, assisted the public security organ, the procuratorate and the court by providing legal opinions and promoting the progress of the case. In May 2023, the public security organ transferred Li to the People’s Procuratorate of Fengtai District, Beijing, for review and prosecution on suspicion of the crime of copyright infringement. In April 2024, the Fengtai District People’s Procuratorate instituted a public prosecution against Li on suspicion of the crime of copyright infringement. The Fengtai District People’s Court convicted Li of the crime of copyright infringement and sentenced him to three years’ fixed-term imprisonment, suspended for three years, and imposed a fine of RMB 1 million.
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Typical Significance</h3>
I. The first criminal judgment obtained by the right holder in China targeting “destroying or circumventing technical measures”
In order to seek illegal gains, the offenders soldered cracking chips inside the right holder’s game consoles, thereby destroying or circumventing the technical measures set by the right holder. Unlike traditional intellectual property infringement crimes, this type of criminal conduct involves a substantial amount of technical content, and the review of technical issues is also a difficulty in case handling. During the handling of the case, the attorneys actively cooperated with the public security organ, the procuratorate and the court in explaining the technical issues involved in the case so as to resolve the technical difficulties. The criminal conduct involved in this case was successfully characterized as the crime of “destroying or circumventing technical measures” under the crime of copyright infringement. This case is the first criminal judgment obtained by the right holder in China targeting “destroying or circumventing technical measures”, laying a solid foundation for its subsequent rights protection.
II. Substantive participation in the case and in-depth exploration of criminal clues
At the stage of review for prosecution, the attorneys took the initiative to apply for access to the case file and examined the case, discovering that the sales amount determined by the public security organ was insufficient and that not all amounts involved in the case had been determined. The attorneys submitted legal opinions to the procuratorial organ, requesting that the entire amount involved in the case be determined. The procuratorial organ adopted the attorneys’ opinions and conducted supplementary investigation on its own, determining the full amount involved in the case.
At the trial stage, the attorneys appeared in court as litigation agents, presenting opinions on the technical issues, copyright and other aspects involved in the case, thereby achieving full-process protection of the right holder’s copyright.
&nbsp;
———— Case-handling Team ————
Jiang Nandi
Managing Partner, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
ljiang@lushenglawyers.com
Wang Jiabin
Attorney
jwang2@Lushenglawyers.com
Chang Xing
Paralegal
xchang@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: center;">02&nbsp;</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Representation of an internationally renowned film and entertainment company in the case against Liu and 11 others for counterfeiting registered trademarks and selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks</h2>
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Brief Case Description</h3>
The right holder is a world-renowned entertainment company. Hu, Liu and others produced, sold and leased goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, disrupting market order and seriously infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of the right holder. Lusheng Law Firm, acting for the right holder, investigated the infringing syndicate, clarified the division of upstream and downstream roles of the suspects in each infringing link, and reported the case to the public security organ.
Subsequently, Lusheng Law Firm, acting for the right holder, assisted the public security organ, the procuratorate and the court by providing legal opinions and promoting the progress of the case. The public security organ arrested more than ten suspects in one operation, seized tens of thousands of infringing counterfeit products and counterfeit trademarks involved in the case, and, between June and July 2024, transferred 11 suspects to the People’s Procuratorate of Tongzhou District, Beijing, for review and prosecution. In January 2025, the Tongzhou District People’s Court convicted Hu, Liu and 9 other suspects of the crimes of counterfeiting registered trademarks and selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, and sentenced them to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 10 months to 4 years and 4 months, and imposed a total fine of RMB 3.55 million.
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Typical Significance</h3>
I. Focusing on the substantive nature of production conduct to promote accurate legal characterization
As counsel for the victim, we conducted an in-depth analysis of Liu’s infringement model and found that his “commissioned processing” conduct did not merely constitute a sales link. Through key evidence discovered in the case file, including online communications between Liu and the manufacturer, vouchers for the delivery of raw materials, and detailed product specifications, we demonstrated that he exercised substantive control over the production process of the counterfeit apparel, and that his conduct already constituted infringing production and manufacturing. On this basis, we submitted a legal opinion and specified the evidentiary circumstances, thereby promoting the judicial authorities to additionally characterize the conduct as the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and achieving a crackdown on infringement at its source.
II. Deep involvement in the case to provide full-process protection for the right holder
At the early investigation stage of the case, we assisted the public security organ in clarifying the specific circumstances of the suspects, and participated in the enforcement operation as well as the counting and classification of tens of thousands of infringing products; at the review for prosecution stage, the attorneys took the initiative to apply for access to the case file and examined the case, discovering that the offense determined by the public security organ was inaccurate. The attorneys submitted legal opinions to the procuratorial organ, requesting that the charge of counterfeiting registered trademarks be additionally included, and the procuratorate and the court ultimately adopted the attorneys’ opinions.
&nbsp;
———— Case-handling Team ————
Wang Shan
Managing Partner of Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
cwang@lushenglawyers.com
Hou Juanjuan
Head of Guangzhou Litigation Team
ahou@lushenglawyers.com
Zhang Qing
Attorney
czhang7@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented multiple cases selected as "Model Cases of IP Protection by the People’s Procuratorate of Beijing 2024”

Miriam Yang

Gavin Gan

In order to implement the work arrangements of the Provincial Party Committee and the Provincial Government on comprehensively strengthening intellectual property protection and to effectively intensify the sanctions against acts of intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting, the Guangdong Provincial Administration for Market Regulation has published a batch of “Model Cases of Administrative Protection of IP in Guangdong”. The series of design patent infringement disputes concerning the “controller for electronic devices” handled by Lusheng Law Firm in cooperation with its strategic partner Rouse International on behalf of a certain internationally renowned game company has been honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
The requester is an internationally renowned game company and the patentee of the design patent entitled “controller for electronic devices”. In February 2023, Lusheng Law Firm assisted the right holder in filing 13 requests with the Dongguan Administration for Market Regulation for administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes involving multiple respondents, and assisted the Administration for Market Regulation in advancing the progress of the cases. The present case is one of this series. The respondent raised defenses in succession, including prior design, limited design space of the product involved, instability of the patent in question, and that the accused infringing products were not manufactured by it.
Upon trial, the case-handling authority held that product appearance size and design space are two different concepts. Although the game controller is small in size, this does not mean that the design space is also small. The comparison for infringement should follow the principle of overall observation and comprehensive judgment, taking the overall visual effect being identical or similar as the criterion. With respect to the respondent’s defense that the accused infringing products were not manufactured by it, through supplementary inspection and evidence collection, the authority enumerated related evidence and, by drawing on the principle of “high probability”, determined that the accused infringing products were manufactured by the respondent. In June 2023, the Dongguan Administration for Market Regulation rendered an administrative adjudication, finding that infringement was established and ordering the respondent to immediately cease manufacturing products that infringe the requester’s design patent right.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
1. Reasonably determining the principles for infringement determination. When the accused infringing product is a small item, the respondent will usually raise defenses such as limited design space and minor differences in certain parts. This case clarifies that appearance size and design space are two different concepts, thereby reasonably determining the principles for infringement determination.
2. Applying the “high probability” principle, which is commonly used in civil disputes, to the determination of the relationship between the seller and the manufacturer.
3. Reflecting the principle of “equal protection” of intellectual property rights. The requester in this case is an internationally renowned enterprise in the video game industry. The 13 related cases were handled lawfully and impartially, which effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the intellectual property right holder.

Lusheng represented case selected as a "Model Cases of Administrative Protection of IP in Guangdong”

Recently, the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court (Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, Shanghai Railway Transport Intermediate Court) released the Ten-Year Typical Judicial Cases on Intellectual Property. The cases handled by Lusheng Law Firm, namely “Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between Tesla (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Zhongyin Food Co., Ltd., Guangdong Zhongyin Food Co., Ltd., and Tangjiu Network Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.” and “Invention Patent Infringement Dispute between Babyzen and Hebei Luyuan Children’s Vehicle Co., Ltd.”, were honorably selected as multiple cases among the "Shanghai Top IP Judicial Model Cases of the Past Decade" .
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">01</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between Tesla (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Zhongyin Food Co., Ltd., Guangdong Zhongyin Food Co., Ltd., and Tangjiu Network Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">— Copying and imitating another’s registered well-known trademark constitutes infringement</h2>
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Brief Facts</h3>
Tesla discovered that Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company displayed, sold, and promoted soda wine and beer infringing Tesla’s exclusive right to use its registered trademarks at the 2020 Jinan Autumn National Sugar and Alcoholic Commodities Fair and the 2021 Chengdu Spring National Sugar and Alcoholic Commodities Fair. Upon further investigation, Tesla also found that Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company sold infringing products online via Taobao and Pinduoduo, and offline via nightclubs, bars, experience stores, and convenience stores. They also promoted the infringing products on WeChat official accounts, investment promotion websites (such as Huobao Food &amp; Beverage Investment Promotion Network, Huobao Good Wine Investment Promotion Network, Tangjiu Network, etc.), Douyin accounts, Weishi accounts, Tencent, Youku and other platforms, and used promotional phrases such as “planned by International Top Brand Co., Ltd., international positioning standards.” The conduct of Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company actually caused confusion among consumers and had a serious adverse impact on Tesla. Tesla therefore brought a lawsuit against Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company before the court.
After proceedings on jurisdictional objection, first instance and second instance, the Shanghai High People’s Court rendered a final judgment dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment, namely: (1) Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company shall immediately cease the trademark infringement; (2) Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company shall immediately cease the unfair competition acts of false advertising; (3) Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company shall, within thirty days from the effective date of the judgment, publish a statement in Legal Daily to eliminate the impact on Tesla caused by the infringing acts; (4) Zhongyin Company and Guangdong Zhongyin Company shall, within ten days from the effective date of the judgment, compensate Tesla for economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 5 million.
&nbsp;
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h3>
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://media.umbraco.io/dev-lusheng/5rxdk4kn/img_9012381958628246196_image.png" alt="" width="500" height="246.03174603174602">
This case was also selected as one of the “Outstanding Transactions of 2023 in Business Law (Intellectual Property Category)”.
&nbsp;
Read More
Read the judgment of this case
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247502956&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=fea12d2d706548575bcba5fe6c7e1845&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng Case | Shanghai High People’s Court Recognizes Six “TESLA” Trademarks as Well-Known Marks!</a>
Obtain the detailed courseware of this case through the article
<a rel="noopener" href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU4ODA0MTY4OQ==&amp;mid=2247513194&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=5352187c6fa2c4d1faa88578520d866f&amp;scene=21#wechat_redirect" target="_blank" data-itemshowtype="0" data-linktype="2">Lusheng Insights | Detailed Analysis of Tesla v. “Tesla Beer” Case</a>
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">02</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Invention Patent Infringement Dispute between Babyzen and Hebei Luyuan Children’s Vehicle Co., Ltd.</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">— The right holder may lawfully choose the method of calculating damages that is favorable to the protection of its rights</h2>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Brief Facts</h3>
Babyzen Ltd. (Babyzen) is a globally renowned stroller company. Its “Babyzen yoyo” stroller is an innovative product. Based on its globally pioneering one-click folding patent, the stroller can be folded and unfolded with ease and is no longer bulky. The “Babyzen yoyo” stroller has therefore become a household name among young parents.
However, during the hot sales period of the “yoyo” stroller, Hebei Luyuan Children’s Vehicle Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Luyuan Company”) closely followed suit by imitating the yoyo stroller and mass-producing and selling counterfeit yoyo products to seek unlawful profits. As Luyuan Company did not invest any R&amp;D costs and used very ordinary materials, its products were sold at low prices and quickly eroded the plaintiff’s market with this low-price strategy, causing the plaintiff enormous losses. The plaintiff therefore filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, requesting that the defendant cease the infringement and compensate for the losses.
Upon trial, the court found that the technical features of the strollers manufactured and sold by the defendant Luyuan Company fell entirely within the scope of protection of the patent claims asserted by the plaintiff, thus constituting infringement of the plaintiff’s invention patent. When determining the amount of damages, the court in this case accepted the method of calculating damages for patent infringement based on the plaintiff’s losses, and, in combination with the evidence on file, appropriately applied the rules of evidence to reasonably infer the profit margin of the patented product and the contribution rate of the patent, and ultimately fully supported the plaintiff’s claim for damages in the amount of RMB 3 million.
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h3>
This case is a particularly noteworthy one in which the Shanghai courts addressed the difficulty of determining damages in intellectual property cases. In this case, on the basis of carefully comparing the technical features to determine the fact of infringement, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court focused on resolving the problem of difficulty in calculating damages in intellectual property infringement cases.
In this case, since the infringing products required no R&amp;D investment, their prices were low. At the same time, the infringing products used exactly the same patented technology and could achieve the same technical effects as the patented products, enabling consumers to obtain essentially the same functional experience. Therefore, the infringing products became “ideal substitutes” for the patented products and caused a tremendous impact on the market for the patented products. At present, the main methods of calculating damages for patent infringement in judicial practice are: the plaintiff’s losses, the defendant’s profits, and statutory damages. Among these methods, the plaintiff’s losses are closest to the essence of damages for infringement. In this case, Babyzen’s counsel provided a large amount of evidence to demonstrate the extent of the “gap” in the right holder’s losses caused by the infringement, thereby enabling the court, in accordance with the “full compensation principle” of tort liability and the relevant provisions of judicial interpretations, to adopt the method of calculating damages based on the plaintiff’s losses as requested in this case.
This case was also selected as one of the “100 Model Cases of Shanghai Courts in 2021” and the “Typical Cases of Shanghai Courts in 2021 on Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection”.
&nbsp;
Persons in Charge of the Cases
Jiang Nandi
Managing Partner, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Jiang Nandi has 20 years of practical experience in intellectual property law and is able to provide clients with comprehensive and in-depth services in IP strategy and global portfolio management. She is adept at handling IP strategy, enforcement and litigation matters, covering trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, data, trade names, domain names and unfair competition. She is highly trusted by many well-known multinational corporations and industry-leading enterprises in China and abroad, with clients spanning the fast-moving consumer goods, luxury goods, technology and internet, automotive, entertainment, education and publishing industries.
Ms. Jiang has represented numerous cases of landmark significance in China’s judicial practice in the IP field, many of which have been recognized by courts and industry institutions, including those selected by the Supreme People’s Court as “Annual Typical Intellectual Property Cases”, among others.
Ms. Jiang has been recommended by many international legal rating agencies and authoritative media, including The Legal 500, Managing IP, Benchmark Litigation, World Trademark Review, etc., and has received honors such as “IPHouse: Top 50 Outstanding IP Lawyers in China” and “IPR Daily: 50 Intellectual Property Elite Lawyers Under 50”.
Email: ljiang@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
Li&nbsp;Xin
Senior Associate
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Li Xin previously worked at well-known domestic law firms and has extensive experience in IP litigation and non-contentious IP matters. Ms. Li has handled various types of IP cases, including trademark infringement, unfair competition, copyright, design patents, domain names, etc., and has served numerous well-known domestic and foreign enterprises in sectors such as fashion and luxury goods, publishing, fast-moving consumer goods, and manufacturing. A trademark and unfair competition case she handled was selected by the Supreme People’s Court as one of the “50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts in 2022”.
Email: xli2@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
Zhou&nbsp;Wei
Associate
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Zhou Wei joined Beijing Lusheng Law Firm in 2020. Prior to that, she worked at well-known domestic law firms and has extensive experience in IP litigation and non-contentious IP matters. Ms. Zhou has handled various types of IP cases, including trademark oppositions, invalidation and administrative litigation, trademark infringement, unfair competition, copyright, domain names, etc., and has served numerous well-known domestic and foreign enterprises in sectors such as education and manufacturing. Ms. Zhou has extensive experience in client communication and management, and is committed to gaining an in-depth understanding of clients and working closely with them to formulate effective IP strategies.
Email: ezhou2@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented multiple cases selected among the "Shanghai Top IP Judicial Model Cases of the Past Decade”

Recently, China Business Law Journal released its list of “CBLJ Deals of the year 2024 (IP)”. Lusheng Law Firm’s representation of New Balance in handling unfair competition disputes with Tianjin Qi某 Footwear Co., Ltd., Jiangxi Han某 Apparel Co., Ltd. and others was honored on the list.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Brief</h2>
Xin某lun Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xin某lun Company”), as an authorized entity, enjoys a non-exclusive right in China to use the intellectual property rights related to New Balance-branded products, including the New Balance 327 series of sports shoes, which enjoys a high degree of recognition, and is entitled to independently bring lawsuits against any acts infringing upon the trade dress and other rights of the above products that have attained a certain influence. Jiangxi Han某 Apparel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Han某 Company”) is the operating entity of a certain brand’s flagship store on the Tmall platform. A pair of sports shoes sold in this store used product trade dress similar to that of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes. The packaging box and product certificate of conformity of such sports shoes indicated that the manufacturer was Tianjin Qi某 Footwear Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qi某 Company”). Xin某lun Company held that Han某 Company and Qi某 Company, among others, had engaged in unfair competition by imitating the trade dress of another’s product with certain influence, and that Xin某lun Company had sent a lawyer’s letter to Qi某 Company and others demanding that they cease the infringing and imitative acts, but Qi某 Company and others refused to cease the infringement after receiving the lawyer’s letter and continued to manufacture and sell the accused infringing products, thereby constituting intentional repeated infringement with serious circumstances, and should therefore bear liability for punitive damages. Accordingly, Xin某lun Company requested the court to order Han某 Company and Qi某 Company, among others, to cease the infringement and to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection in a total amount of RMB 3 million.
Upon trial, the court held that Qi某 Company had imitated the trade dress of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes of Xin某lun Company, which had attained a certain influence, thereby constituting unfair competition, and should bear civil liability to cease the infringement and compensate for losses. With respect to the amount of compensation, the actual losses suffered by Xin某lun Company due to the infringing acts could be determined based on the sales volume of the infringing products multiplied by the right holder’s reasonable profit per product. According to the notarial certificate and the 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某lun Company did not provide the profit margin of the New Balance 327 series sports shoes, but only submitted audit reports asserting that its operating profit margin in 2021 was approximately 13.54% and in 2022 was 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 such 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 distinctive trade dress of the well-known product to be approximately 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, promotions, and other factors, the court, at its discretion, determined the actual selling price to be RMB 600. In summary, the actual losses suffered by Xin某lun Company due to the infringing acts amounted to RMB 167,328 (18,592 pairs × RMB 600/pair × 15% × 10%). As the manufacturer, Qi某 Company should bear a higher duty of care. Although it claimed to have conducted sufficient market research and patent searches prior to research and development and production, it failed to provide any evidence to prove such claim, and it manufactured and sold the accused infringing products without authorization, thereby subjectively demonstrating intent to infringe. The sales volume and sales amount of the accused infringing products on the Tmall and Pinduoduo platforms were enormous, and the circumstances were serious, satisfying the constituent elements for punitive damages. Therefore, taking the actual losses of Xin某lun Company as the base for calculating punitive damages and applying one-time punitive damages, the court determined that Qi某 Company should bear punitive damages and reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder to stop the infringement in a total amount of RMB 380,000. As Han某 Company, in its capacity as a seller, successfully established the defense of lawful source, it did not bear liability for compensation, but it was required to cease the infringement and pay Xin某lun Company reasonable expenses of RMB 20,000.
In the first-instance judgment, the court ordered Qi某 Company and Han某 Company to cease the infringement; Qi某 Company to compensate Xin某lun Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection in a total amount of RMB 380,000; and Han某 Company to pay Xin某lun Company reasonable expenses for rights protection of RMB 20,000. After the first-instance judgment was rendered, none of the parties filed an appeal.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
This case is a typical example of distinguishing between the different liabilities to be borne by manufacturers and sellers and the different levels of duty of care to be imposed on them. In this case, a higher duty of care was imposed on the manufacturer, and its assertion that it had conducted market research and patent searches prior to research and development and production was not accepted. The court upheld the right holder’s request that the manufacturer bear liability for punitive damages, thereby severely cracking down on infringers at the source, curbing unfair competition involving malicious “free-riding” on famous brands, highlighting the judicial orientation of strict protection of intellectual property rights, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of right holders, maintaining a market order of fair competition, and contributing to the creation of a market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized business environment.
This case was also selected as one of the Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of Jiangxi Courts in 2023.
&nbsp;
————Case-handling Team————
Wang &nbsp;Shan
Director of the Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Wang Shan is currently the Director of Lusheng’s Shanghai Office and Co-head of the Dispute Resolution Practice, and is based in Shanghai. Ms. Wang is a distinguished expert in the field of intellectual property protection, with a practice covering trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade names, and unfair competition, and has accumulated over 20 years of practical experience.She serves numerous world-renowned enterprises, many of which are from the media and entertainment, sports, fashion and luxury goods, automotive, technology, chemical, and restaurant chain industries. She has successfully represented many dispute cases with extensive social impact and cases involving damages in the tens of millions of renminbi. Many of these cases have repeatedly been selected as “Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts” released by the Supreme People’s Court and as annual typical cases by courts at various levels, and have been included in lists such as “QBPC: Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of the Year” and “China Business Law Journal: Deals of the Year”.Ms. Wang has been widely recognized by many international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including Managing IP, Benchmark Litigation, World Trademark Review, and IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), and has been listed in rankings such as “Managing IP: Top 250 Women in IP”.
Email: cwang@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
Yu Yisi
Head of Shanghai Litigation Team
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Yu Yisi is a senior intellectual property lawyer with nearly 20 years of practice. She provides litigation and non-litigation legal services relating to intellectual property to well-known multinational companies, covering trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade dress, trade names, domain names, and other fields. She has long served numerous leading multinational companies, many of which are from the fashion, technology, manufacturing and engineering, entertainment, sports, toy, hotel, alcoholic beverage, and consumer goods industries. With her extensive litigation experience, she has successfully represented many challenging and complex litigation cases, several of which involved securing, for the first time in China, protection of clients’ core intellectual property rights and obtaining high damages.Many of the cases she has handled are of landmark significance in the field of domestic judicial practice and have been repeatedly selected as typical cases by courts at various levels and professional institutions, including “Top 10 IP Cases of Chinese Courts of the Year” selected by the Supreme People’s Court and “QBPC: Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of the Year”.
Email: ayu2@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
Xu Liping
Senior Lawyer
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Xu Liping provides advisory and representation services on intellectual property strategies, intellectual property portfolios, and intellectual property-related disputes, including various matters involving trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade names, domain names, and unfair competition. Ms. Xu advises clients from a wide range of industries, including the technology industry, telecommunications industry, digital internet industry, manufacturing and engineering industry, personal care industry, entertainment industry, and luxury goods industry. Ms. Xu has handled many significant cases in China and has received awards from courts and industry organizations.
Email: lxu@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
Feng Guimei
Senior Lawyer
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Feng Guimei joined Lusheng in 2008 and has worked in the field of intellectual property for more than ten years, with extensive practice experience. She is skilled in the design and management of intellectual property enforcement projects. As a senior intellectual property lawyer, Ms. Feng provides overall intellectual property protection strategies, brand protection advice, and litigation legal services to many world-leading enterprises in industries such as toys, sports brands, and luxury goods. Ms. Feng also represents and has prevailed in various types of litigation cases involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, and copyright infringement.
Email: hfeng@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented case selected as a "CBLJ Deals of the year 2024 (IP)" 

Claire Zhang

In order to further publicize the achievements in combating infringement and piracy and to give full play to the exemplary and guiding role of typical cases, the National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China has released the “Top 10 Cases of Combating Copyright Infringement and Piracy in China 2023”. The case concerning infringement of copyright in artistic works by Shanghai Junku Information Technology Co., Ltd. against Universal City Studios LLC, handled by Lusheng Law Firm as counsel for Universal Pictures, has been honored as one of the selected cases.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Introduction of the Case</h2>
Shanghai Junku Information Technology Co., Ltd. operates the website “Dazuo.com”. Without the permission of the copyright owner Universal City Studios LLC (“Universal Pictures”), it had long used web crawler technology to capture artistic works and related materials disseminated online, and provided to the public and its members online browsing and download services for artistic works such as “Minions” and “Kung Fu Panda”. The website affixed copyright notices without authorization, misleading users into believing that its content had been lawfully licensed. Lusheng Law Firm, acting on behalf of Universal Pictures, filed an administrative complaint against this infringing conduct.
In September 2023, based on clues from the administrative complaint, the Law Enforcement Corps of the Shanghai Municipal Administration of Culture and Tourism conducted an investigation into the case. In November 2023, pursuant to Article 53 of the Copyright Law, the Law Enforcement Corps of the Shanghai Municipal Administration of Culture and Tourism imposed an administrative penalty on the company, issuing a warning and a fine of RMB 100,000.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
The infringer aggregated, through technical means, high-value artistic works in which Universal Pictures enjoys copyright, and set up a paid download function for profit; the infringing content could only be located through keyword searches and became the source of downstream secondary infringement, seriously damaging the brand value of the right holder and the order of the legitimate licensing market. After accepting the engagement, Lusheng promptly carried out evidence preservation, infringement analysis and legal argumentation, accurately identifying the infringing entity and the nature of the infringing acts, and, in coordination with the Chengdu Copyright Administration and the Shanghai Cultural Law Enforcement Corps, activated a cross-regional cooperation mechanism.
This case constitutes a concrete action by copyright administrative enforcement authorities to regulate the legitimate image licensing market. The investigation and handling of infringing and pirated acts involving animated artistic works fully reflects China’s copyright enforcement orientation of strictly protecting and equally protecting the lawful rights and interests of both Chinese and foreign copyright holders.
&nbsp;
———— Case-handling Team ————
WANG &nbsp;Shan
Director of Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Wang Shan is currently the Director of Lusheng’s Shanghai Office and Co-head of the Dispute Resolution Practice, based in Shanghai. Ms. Wang is a distinguished expert in the field of intellectual property protection. Her practice covers trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade names and unfair competition, and she has accumulated over 20 years of practical experience.She serves numerous world-renowned companies, many of which are from the media and entertainment, sports, fashion and luxury, automotive, technology, chemical, and chain catering industries. She has successfully represented many dispute cases with extensive social impact and cases involving damages in the tens of millions of RMB. Many of these cases have repeatedly been selected as “Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts” released by the Supreme People’s Court and as annual typical cases by courts at various levels, and have been included in lists such as “QBPC: Top Ten Cases in Intellectual Property Protection” and “China Business Law Journal: Deals of the Year”.Ms. Wang has been widely recognized by many international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including Managing IP, Benchmark Litigation, World Trademark Review, IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), among others, and has been listed in rankings such as “Managing IP: Top 250 Women in IP” worldwide.
Email: cwang@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
ZHANG &nbsp;Qing
Attorney
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. Zhang Qing has practiced in the field of intellectual property for many years, providing legal services to numerous multinational enterprises and well-known domestic and foreign companies in various sectors, including media and entertainment, toys, sports, the Internet, daily chemical products, automotive and aviation, and copyright-related industries. She has handled and participated in various types of intellectual property litigation cases involving trademarks, unfair competition, copyright, and design patents, and has also provided legal advice on intellectual property portfolio planning and management, IP enforcement, and IP risk prevention and control, thereby resolving various types of intellectual property issues in both contentious and non-contentious contexts.
Email:czhang7@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented case selected as one of the "Top 10 Cases of Combating Copyright Infringement and Piracy in China 2023” by National Copyright Administration of China

In order to further advance the special campaign against online intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting crimes and to give full play to the exemplary and guiding role of typical cases, the Ministry of Public Security has selected and released the “Top 10 Model Cases of Combating Online IP Infringement &amp; Counterfeiting by the Ministry of Public Security”. The case concerning the production and sale of pirated toys by Yang Mou Shan and others, handled by Lusheng Law Firm on behalf of a certain internationally renowned toy and entertainment group, has been honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Brief Case Overview</h2>
The public security authorities in Shandong cracked a case involving the production and sale of pirated toys by Yang Mou Shan and others. In June 2024, based on clues reported by the right holder enterprise, the public security authorities in Heze, Shandong, uncovered the case, arrested 29 criminal suspects, destroyed 7 criminal dens, and seized on site more than 100,000 pirated toys, with the amount involved exceeding RMB 76 million. Upon investigation, since November 2019, the criminal suspect Yang Mou Shan and others had registered multiple companies and engaged in large-scale production of pirated toys, copying the design of product packaging, printing assembly instructions, and, after packaging, selling the products through e-commerce online stores and physical shops in small commodity markets.
Lusheng Law Firm assisted the client and the public security authorities in handling this case.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Typical Significance</h2>
This case is another major case in which Lusheng Law Firm assisted the right holder and the Shandong public security authorities in cracking down on the manufacture and sale of pirated toys. The significance of this case lies not only in the exceptionally high amount involved, but also in the full-chain crackdown and the cutting off of the cross-border supply chain of infringing products. In this case, our firm assisted the public security authorities in uncovering the entire network for designing and manufacturing pirated toys. In addition to the persons in charge and key managers of the factories manufacturing pirated toys, the designers of the pirated toys, as well as downstream distributors responsible for wholesale, retail, and export, were also arrested, thereby effecting a comprehensive and thorough crackdown on the entire infringement ecosystem. The infringing products in this case were exported by traders to multiple countries in Southeast Asia, Europe, and other regions. This crackdown has cut off the export routes of the infringing products and has also helped to establish China’s image of intellectual property protection in the international arena.
&nbsp;
———— Case Handling Team ————
WANG Shan
Director of Shanghai Office, Co-head of Dispute Resolution Practice
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. WANG Shan is currently the Director of Lusheng’s Shanghai office and Co-head of the Dispute Resolution Practice, and is based in Shanghai. Ms. Wang is a distinguished expert in the field of intellectual property protection, with a practice covering trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trade names, and unfair competition, and has accumulated over 20 years of practical experience.She serves numerous world-renowned enterprises, mostly from the media and entertainment, sports, fashion and luxury, automotive, technology, chemical, and restaurant chain industries. She has successfully represented many high-profile contentious matters with broad social impact and cases involving damages in the tens of millions of renminbi. Many of these cases have repeatedly been selected as “Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts” released by the Supreme People’s Court and as annual typical cases by courts at various levels, and have been included in lists such as “QBPC: Top 10 Cases of Intellectual Property Protection of the Year” and “China Business Law Journal: Deals of the Year”.Ms. Wang has been widely recognized by many international legal ranking institutions and authoritative media, including Managing IP, Benchmark Litigation, World Trademark Review, IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), among others, and has been listed in rankings such as “Managing IP: Top 250 Women in IP Worldwide”.
Email: cwang@lushenglawyers.com
&nbsp;
FENG Guimei
Senior Lawyer
Lusheng Law Firm&nbsp;
Ms. FENG Guimei joined Lusheng in 2008 and has worked in the field of intellectual property for more than ten years, with extensive practice experience. She is adept at the design and management of intellectual property enforcement projects. As a senior intellectual property lawyer, Ms. Feng provides many world-leading enterprises in the toy, sports brand, and luxury goods industries with comprehensive intellectual property protection strategies, brand protection consulting, and litigation-related legal services. Ms. Feng has also represented and prevailed in various types of litigation cases involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, and copyright infringement.
Email: hfeng@lushenglawyers.com

Lusheng represented case selected as one of the "Top 10 Model Cases of Combating Online IP Infringement & Counterfeiting by the Ministry of Public Security”

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

On March 20, the Supreme People’s Court selected 15 cases from those concluded by courts nationwide in 2024 as the fifth batch of Top IP Judicial Protection Case in the Seed Industry Selected by the Supreme People's Court (Batch 5, released in 2025). The case “‘Scilate’ Apple New Plant Variety Temporary Protection Period Usage Fee and Infringement Dispute” represented by Lusheng Law Firm was honorably selected.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case Selected for the Fifth Batch of Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry by the Supreme People’s Court Involving Lusheng</h2>
“Scilate” Apple New Plant Variety Temporary Protection Period Usage Fee and Infringement Dispute
[Dispute over Usage Fee During the Temporary Protection Period and Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights between a Certain British International Company and a Certain Agricultural Company]
&nbsp;
<h3>Case Information</h3>
<ul class="list-paddingleft-2">
<li>
In the second-instance case involving ENZAFruit’s new apple plant variety Scilate / brand name Envy, the Supreme People’s Court, on the basis of the revised Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Seed Law”), upheld the landmark first-instance judgment. ENZAFruit is a subsidiary of T&amp;G Global, headquartered in New Zealand, and is a company engaged in the operation of exotic fruits and vegetables.
</li>
<li>
In this case, Lusheng Law Firm successfully assisted ENZAFruit in obtaining compensation of RMB 3.3 million, which is a rare amount awarded in civil cases concerning infringement of new plant varieties in China.
</li>
</ul>
Recently, drawing on its many years of legal practice experience in new plant varieties, Lusheng assisted ENZAFruit in achieving 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 compensation in civil cases concerning infringement of new plant varieties in China was awarded — as high as RMB 3.3 million.
&nbsp;
<h3>The Compensation Amount Is Truly Rare</h3>
At first instance, the Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province, in light of the defendants’ bad faith and serious infringing acts, decided to calculate punitive damages at twice the amount of the illegal gains derived from the infringing acts. At second instance, this amount of compensation was upheld by the Supreme People’s Court.
The final amount of compensation in this case is truly rare among civil cases involving infringement of new asexually reproduced plant varieties 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 compensation in such cases is about RMB 425,000, far lower than the amount awarded in this case.
&nbsp;
<h3>In Addition to Ordering Cessation of Infringement, the Supreme People’s Court Ordered the Infringers to Cut Off Propagating Materials and Render Them Non-viable</h3>
During the evidence collection process, Lusheng conducted extensive on-site evidence collection in multiple orchards in 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 infringing acts and submitting the results to the court.
The final judgment in this case upheld the previous decision rendered by the first-instance court in November 2023 on protecting ENZAFruit’s new plant variety right in the Scilate apple plant variety. The Supreme People’s Court held that the defendants’ illegal planting and sale of plant materials of the Scilate variety and apples harvested from such 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 legitimate rights and interests of the right holder.
This judgment of the Supreme People’s Court is of far-reaching significance and has bolstered the confidence of domestic and foreign holders of new plant variety rights. At the same time, in accordance with the newly revised Seed Law, the scope of protection in this case has been extended from propagating materials to the fruits harvested from the planting of such propagating materials.
In addition, with the defendants’ appeal having been dismissed, ENZAFruit may now file a separate lawsuit and seek further damages for the infringing acts that the defendants continued to commit after the first-instance judgment in 2023.
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Evaluation of the Typical Significance by the Supreme People’s Court</h2>
“In this case, the variety right holder is an enterprise from New Zealand, and the adjudication result demonstrates the people’s courts’ adherence to equal protection in accordance with the law. This case treats the act of selling harvested materials as a natural extension of the acts of producing and propagating propagating materials, and, where the infringer mainly obtains illegal gains through the sale of harvested materials, takes the sales profits of such harvested materials as the basis for determining the amount of compensation. This provides an important reference for the calculation of damages in subsequent similar cases and further strengthens the comprehensive protection of variety right holders. The method of cessation of infringement supported in this case, namely cutting off infringing propagating material scions and then grafting other non-infringing variety scions, fully takes into account the characteristics of perennial asexually reproduced crops. It not only fully protects the interests of variety right holders, but also reasonably accommodates the restoration of agricultural production and the avoidance of resource waste, and constitutes a useful exploration in refining the forms of cessation of infringement for variety rights.”
(The above evaluation is reproduced from the Supreme People’s Court.)
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Case-handling Experience of the Lusheng Team</h2>
Su Yanhong, person in charge of this case:
“The success of this case highlights the importance of intellectual property protection in China’s agriculture and food industry, both for local and foreign brand owners, especially against the backdrop of market demand for high-quality agricultural products. The judgment in this case fully takes into account the enormous investment of time, capital, and human resources required in plant breeding, and fully reflects the feasibility of enforcing intellectual property rights in asexually reproduced materials such as fruits and horticultural plants. We firmly believe that, with the comprehensive protection provided by the newly implemented Seed Law, this judgment will strongly encourage local and foreign holders of new plant variety rights to actively protect their assets and enhance their confidence in investing in China.”
&nbsp;
Xu Liping, senior litigation lawyer:
“This case is a rare one in the field of new plant varieties in which a high amount of compensation was awarded and punitive damages were applied. The Supreme People’s Court elaborated in detail on the impact of harvested materials on holders of new plant variety rights and concluded that calculating damages based on infringing harvested materials can better protect the competitive interests of right holders. At the same time, rendering illegal propagating materials non-viable and destroying them is the most effective means of protecting the interests of holders of new plant variety rights.”
&nbsp;
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Client Testimonial</h2>
Morgan Rogers:
“This landmark judgment demonstrates China’s firm determination to protect plant variety rights, which makes T&amp;G even more confident in our investments in China. Against the backdrop of continuously strengthened intellectual property protection, we will further expand the licensing of excellent varieties such as Envy apples. This will not only benefit Chinese consumers and partners, but will also bring new growth opportunities for our business. This judgment will help promote the business development plans of T&amp;G and ENZAFruit and lay a solid foundation for further contributing to the vigorous development of China’s horticultural industry.”

Lusheng represented case selected as a "Top IP Judicial Protection Case in the Seed Industry Selected by the Supreme People's Court (Batch 5, released in 2025)”

<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

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

<!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

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 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

Hou Juanjuan, head of Lusent Guangzhou litigation team, joins IP outbound matching, enabling global layout

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.

Hou Heng, director of Lusheng Guangzhou branch, 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

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.

At SIFF, Lusheng issued China Film & TV IP White Paper: 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Lusheng secures victory for Amer Sports in trademark infringement case — sale of goods destined for destruction constitutes infringement, Shanghai IP Court issues fivefold punitive damages on appeal

Read More

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

Top 10 Typical Intellectual Property Cases by IP Economy 2025

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

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

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

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

Stay in the loop with
our latest listings

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

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

Lusheng secures victory for Amer Sports in trademark infringement case — sale of goods destined for destruction constitutes infringement, Shanghai IP Court issues fivefold punitive damages on appeal

Read More

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

Top 10 Typical Intellectual Property Cases by IP Economy 2025

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

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

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

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

Stay in the loop with our latest listings

Stay in the loop with
our latest listings