In 2025, the "Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court" published a total of 14 cases (judgment documents), including 5 civil cases of intellectual property rights and 2 administrative cases, involving trademark infringement, unfair competition, invention and utility model patent disputes, as well as trademark opposition, trademark invalidity, etc. The current compilation is as follows for legal colleagues to learn and exchange.

A case of administrative dispute over trademark opposition review between a media culture limited company and the China National Intellectual Property Administration

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 12, 2025

The main point of the judgment is that China's Trademark Law implements a system of trademark registration and acquisition, adopting the principle of prior application. It does not stipulate that only the prior use of a trademark can apply for registration, nor does it stipulate that a joint trademark owner becomes a joint trademark owner due to joint use of the trademark or joint contribution to the trademark's reputation. In the absence of clear legal provisions and contractual basis, it is not possible to adopt the idea of property sharing to determine that trademark goodwill should be shared, and to deny the applicant's legal qualification to apply for trademark registration in advance.

A case of administrative dispute between a science and technology company in Hangzhou and the China National Intellectual Property Administration on the request for invalidation of trademark rights

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 11, 2025

The main point of the judgment is that domain names can be protected by trademark law as prior civil rights. The protection of prior civil rights and interests requires the following conditions: (1) the registration time of the domain name is earlier than the time of the disputed trademark application registration; (2) the domain name has a certain degree of popularity and is known to the relevant public; (3) The domain name and the disputed trademark logo are identical or similar; (4) The goods or services provided by domain name operators are identical or similar to the goods or services approved for use of the disputed trademark, which can easily cause confusion and misidentification among the relevant public. The evidence of promotion and use of goods or services provided by domain name operators can serve as a factual basis for determining whether they have a certain level of popularity. ② The disputed trademark constitutes an unfair means of preemptively registering a trademark that has already been used by others and has a certain impact. The following conditions must be met: (1) the trademark that was previously used has already been used and has a certain impact before the date of the disputed trademark application; (2) The disputed trademark has the same or similar identification as the previously used trademark: (3) The goods or services designated for use by the disputed trademark are the same or similar to those used by the previously used trademark; (4) The applicant for the disputed trademark has subjective malice and knowingly or should have known that the trademark was used before registering it.

Case of Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between Anju Door Industry Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Door Industry Co., Ltd

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 9, 2025

The main point of the judgment is that those who knowingly use trademarks and names similar to others' registered trademarks and engage in the same business, despite knowing the popularity and influence of others' registered trademarks and names, have malicious intent to climb the popularity of others. If the scale of infringement is large, the area involved is wide, and the profit from infringement is huge, it belongs to serious infringement circumstances. The people's court may apply punitive damages based on the request of the right holder, taking into account factors such as the degree of subjective fault of the infringer and the severity of the infringement. Case No.: (2022) Supreme Court Civil Final No. 209

Dispute over Infringement of Utility Model Patent Rights between a Technology Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen and an Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 8, 2025

Judgment gist ① If the patent invalidation procedure is suspended due to the adoption of property preservation measures for the patent involved in the case, which makes the China National Intellectual Property Administration fail to make a review decision on the request for invalidation before the judgment of patent infringement litigation, the people's court may, according to the specific circumstances of the case, make corresponding arrangements for the performance of the obligations determined by the judgment, including attaching necessary conditions to the performance of the judgments such as stopping infringement and compensating for losses. For example, the China National Intellectual Property Administration's examination of the patent claim on which the patentee filed a lawsuit and made a decision to maintain the validity of the examination shall be taken as the precondition for the performance of the judgment, and the debt interest during the period shall be arranged together to reasonably balance the interests of all parties. ② For judgments with performance conditions attached, interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance can be simultaneously awarded. That is, from the date of delivery of the effective judgment until the date of fulfillment of the performance conditions, interest (i.e. single interest) shall be calculated and paid according to the same period loan market quotation rate published by the National Interbank Funding Center; If the performance conditions determined by the judgment are met but the monetary payment obligation is still not fulfilled, double the debt interest during the period of delayed performance shall be paid. Case number: (2024) Supreme People's Court Zhimin Zhong No. 370

Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights between Huamou Technology Co., Ltd. and Wangmou (Beijing) Network Technology Co., Ltd

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 8, 2025

The main point of the judgment is that the owner of a standard essential patent has filed a patent infringement liability lawsuit against the standard implementer in a Chinese court. Preliminary facts indicate that the owner of a standard essential patent has fulfilled its FRAND obligations in the license negotiation process, and the standard implementer has obvious faults in the license negotiation process. The standard implementer has applied for an injunction (enforcement) order to an extraterritorial court against the lawsuit in a Chinese court, which improperly hinders the owner of a standard essential patent from exercising its due process rights to advance the trial and enforcement of judgments in Chinese courts. The owner's application for a counter injunction (enforcement) order has factual basis and legal basis, and can be allowed according to law. Case number: (2024) Supreme People's Court Zhi Min Zhong 914, 915

Tangshan Ceramic Association and Li's Unfair Competition Dispute Case

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 6, 2025

The essence of the judgment on whether an industry association has the qualifications as a plaintiff in unfair competition disputes can be comprehensively judged based on the nature and business scope of the industry association. If there is a competitive relationship between the industry association and the operator and they have a direct interest in the case, they can be recognized as qualified plaintiffs. For specific product names with national or industry standards, if there is no relevant evidence to prove the existence of inheritance relationship, adding the word "new" before the specific product name as the promoted product name can easily lead consumers to have a wrong understanding of the product, and may deceive or mislead consumers. Therefore, it can be determined that the promotional behavior constitutes false advertising. Case No.: (2022) Supreme Court Civil Re No. 76

Case of Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between Hailiang Education Management Group Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Ronghuai Education Group Co., Ltd

Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, Issue 3, 2025

The referee's intention is to use a competitor's well-known trademark, business name, or enterprise name as a keyword during the bidding ranking process without permission, and engage in "implicit use" behavior. Subjectively, it has the intention of climbing others' reputation, objectively using the market awareness and influence of the competitor's well-known trademark, business name, or enterprise name to attract traffic that originally belonged to the competitor to their own website, thereby gaining a competitive advantage. Such ways and means of participating in competition not only directly damage the rights and interests of competitors, disrupt the normal order of Internet competition, but also damage the rights and interests of consumers and social public interests, violate the principle of good faith and the code of business ethics, and should be regulated by the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. Case number: (2022) Supreme Court Civil Re 131