Against the backdrop of continuously strengthened intellectual property protection, disputes over trademark granting and confirmation, trademark infringement and unfair competition have remained key priorities of judicial adjudication. 

On April 20, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued typical intellectual property cases heard by people’s courts in 2025, including four trademark-related cases. Clarifying judicial rules and providing practical guidelines, these cases focus on critical issues such as distinctiveness identification of phrase trademarks, criminal-civil connection system and the application of punitive damages in trademark infringement involving refurbished goods, criminal-civil coordination in counterfeit trademark cases, and regulation of malicious trademark registration.

I. Distinctiveness Identification of Phrase Trademarks: Overturning the Perception That "Phrases Lack Distinctiveness"

Case Highlights

A company applied to register the trademark 乔治勋爵的悲剧(The Tragedy of Lord George) for perfume products. The National Intellectual Property Administration rejected the application on grounds that the phrase lacked distinctiveness, and the first and second instance courts upheld the rejection. The Supreme People’s Court reversed the ruling upon retrial, holding that the phrase was not a fixed collocation, and due to its uniqueness, was not a commonly used sign in the perfume industry, and had been recognized by relevant public as an indicator of product source through actual use. It thus possessed inherent distinctiveness and was eligible for registration.

Core Adjudication Rules

Phrase trademarks do not inherently lack distinctiveness. Their distinctiveness shall be comprehensively determined based on the uniqueness of word combinations, industrial common usage and practical application effects. Prior approved registration of trademarks with similar phrasing styles and public association of specific phrases with particular product sources serve as important evidence for distinctiveness verification. The essence of trademark distinctiveness lies in distinguishing product sources, rather than whether the expression is a fixed vocabulary in form.

Practical Guidelines

Phrase trademarks are prone to being deemed non-distinctive. When applying for such trademarks, enterprises may strengthen trademark distinctiveness and improve registration success rates by accumulating evidence of trademark use, market promotion, application popularity and brand awareness.

II. Resale of Refurbished Switches: Application of Punitive Damages for Trademark Infringement Under Criminal-Civil Intersection

Case Highlights

The defendant purchased second-hand switches at low prices, refurbished them by disassembly, serial number alteration and repainting, affixed the trademark of the right holder and sold them as brand-new equipment. The Haidian District People’s Court of Beijing rendered a criminal verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. The right holder subsequently filed a civil lawsuit, claiming trademark infringement and punitive damages against six defendants. Finding deliberate malicious infringement with serious circumstances, a well-known status of the involved trademark, complete infringing chains with substantial profits, and unsold infringing goods valued at over RMB 5.4 million, the court applied triple punitive damages in consideration of criminal fines, ordering the six defendants to jointly compensate RMB 20 million plus RMB 100,000 for reasonable litigation expenses.

Core Adjudication Rules

Criminal penalties imposed for the same infringing act do not preclude the application of civil punitive damages. Selling refurbished goods as new products with affixed registered trademarks constitutes typical trademark infringement, and punitive damages may be applied for obvious malicious acts and severe circumstances. In criminal-civil intersecting cases, courts ensure proportional liability and punishment when determining compensation multiples.

Practical Guidelines

Enterprises suffering large-scale trademark infringement via refurbished counterfeit goods may pursue criminal liability and civil claims simultaneously to fully safeguard trademark rights and crack down on counterfeiting and sales chains.

III. Criminal-Civil Coordination in Trademark Counterfeiting: Transfer of Civil Infringement Clues for Criminal Proceedings to Punish Infringement from the Source

Case Highlights

During the trial of a civil trademark dispute, the Yiyuan County People’s Court in Shandong Province discovered that the source infringer Deng had long assembled and sold counterfeit brand batteries, constituting suspected criminal offences. The court promptly transferred relevant clues to public security authorities. Following investigation and prosecution, the court convicted Deng of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, as he used identical trademarks on identical goods without authorization with exceptionally serious circumstances. Considering voluntary surrender, guilty plea, compensation to the victim enterprise and obtained forgiveness, Deng was sentenced to three years in prison with a three-year probation and a fine of RMB 200,000, and all infringing products were ordered to be destroyed.

Core Adjudication Rules

Sound criminal-civil linkage shall be implemented in intellectual property cases. Criminal clues discovered in civil proceedings shall be promptly transferred to public security organs to punish infringement from the source and impose criminal liability.

Practical Guidelines

When protecvting civil rights, enterprises may actively cooperate with courts to transfer serious, long-term and large-scale infringing clues to criminal procedures, achieving full-chain crackdown, pursuing criminal liability against counterfeiters and obtaining civil compensation for losses.

IV. Repeated Malicious Trademark Squatting and Hoarding for Profit: Liable for Unfair Competition, and Agencies Knowing or Should Knowing Shall Bear Joint Liability

Case Highlights

The trademark “蓝妹” owned by a beverage company enjoyed widespread market reputation. As a peer operator, Company Jin repeatedly entrusted a trademark agency to apply for more than ten similar trademarks including “蓝味啤酒” and “蓝魅啤酒”. Many applications were rejected or invalidated, and some trademarks were licensed to third parties for profit-making. The Yuexiu District People’s Court of Guangzhou ruled that Company Jin’s malicious trademark hoarding and free-riding constituted unfair competition. The professional trademark agency, which provided services despite knowing the malicious registration intent, constituted contributory infringement and was ordered to bear joint compensation liability within RMB100,000.

Core Adjudication Rules

Repeated applications for similar trademarks of well-known brands beyond normal business needs constitute unfair competition. Trademark agencies that provide services while knowing or ought to know malicious registration shall be liable for contributory infringement. Trademark hoarding and licensing for profit violates the principle of good faith and constitutes unfair competition.

Practical Guidelines

Against malicious squatting and hoarding of similar trademarks, enterprises may safeguard rights through both trademark invalidation procedures and unfair competition lawsuits, and pursue joint liability of trademark agencies with knowledge of malicious acts.

Conclusion

The trademark typical cases for 2025 issued by the Supreme People’s Court deliver clear judicial orientations: stringent trademark protection, clarified standards for trademark granting and confirmation, severe punishment for malicious infringement and unfair competition, improved criminal-civil linkage mechanisms, and crackdown on malicious trademark squatting and hoarding. Covering phrase trademark registration, criminal-civil coordination and punitive damages in refurbished goods infringement, cross-case anti-counterfeiting, and regulation of malicious registration, judicial rulings adhere to market realities and the principle of good faith, providing robust judicial safeguards for corporate brand innovation and fair market competition.