Chinese Case Law in Focus
Enforcement Trends
Chinese IP litigation always draws global attention. Ralph Cunningham reviews key topics from this ever-popular session on recent Chinese case lawyers.
If a brand owner is looking for any pointers regarding what their trademark enforcement strategy should be in China, the courts are a good place to start.
Absolute-grounds examination and malicious lawsuits, the best route for trade dress protection, and an actionable strategy for criminal incidental civil litigation are among the several interesting trends in China case law that panelists will shed light on in the China Case Law Update session, on Monday, May 4, 2:45 pm to 3:45 pm.
The moderator, Hui Huang, Partner at Wanhuida Intellectual Property (China), will be joined on the panel by Helen Xia, APAC IPMT, Practice Area Leader at Hogan Lovells International (China), Xiaomeng Dong, Manager of Trademark Application Department at Han Kun Law Offices (China), Ning Yang, Attorney at NTD Patent & Trademark Agency (China), Tracy Shen, Lawyer at Chang Tsi & Partners (China), and Fang He, Partner at King & Wood (China).
According to Ms. Dong, examiners are trying to control the large volume of trademark applications. In her view, this has led to them applying stricter examination standards based on absolute grounds.
“To change this trend, greater emphasis should be placed on actual evidence—for instance, trademarks that are genuinely in use and have not caused any negative societal impact should be taken into account during examination. A blanket refusal of trademark registration is not an appropriate approach,” she says.
Infringers are becoming more sophisticated, says Ms. Shen. They are no longer just engaging in the counterfeiting of registered trademarks; they are also filing applications for similar trademarks, registering domain names, copying website designs and packaging, making false or misleading statements, and using clients’ trademarks as their corporate names.
Clients have had to deploy a range of tactics, including cease-and-desist letters, domain-name arbitration, and administrative complaints, to combat such behavior.
“The key takeaway is that in today’s enforcement landscape, a holistic, multi-forum strategy is essential to effectively combat complex trademark and unfair competition violations in China,” says Ms. Shen.
"A blanket refusal of trademark registration is not an appropriate approach."
- Xiaomeng Dong | Han Kun Law Offices (China)
Trademark Overlap
In 2025, three cases stood out in the Chinese courts as examples of judges showing a keen interest in the limits of trademark law and where it overlaps with other intellectual (IP) rights.
In the Puma case, the Supreme People’s Court reversed a Beijing High Court decision against Puma and ordered the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to review its rejection of an invalidation request by the sports clothing company. This litigation examined the intersection between design patent protection and prior trademark rights.
The Tommy Hilfiger case, decided by Beijing High Court in October 2025, considered trademark similarity, copyright infringement, and bad‑faith registration.
In the “farmer holding a hoe” case, the Supreme People’s Court ruled in March 2025 that the registration of a subsequent trademark may infringe prior copyrights in a graphic work, even if the copyrighted element is only a small part of the disputed mark.
“The Supreme People’s Court Puma judgment explicitly applied trademark law principles to assess the validity of a design patent, marking a highly groundbreaking approach,” says Mr. Yang.
"A holistic, multi-forum strategy is essential to effectively combat complex trademark and unfair competition violations in China."
- Tracy Shen | Chang Tsi & Partners (China)
AI and IP Collide
Brand owners should pay close attention in the coming months and years as Chinese courts get the opportunity to interpret the intersection between artificial intelligence (AI) and IP.
Ms. Xia says the courts have already been looking to the future in cases concerning copyright protection for prompts, such as in the Wang v. Wuhan Technology Company case, as well as liability for AI hallucinations or misleading results, which arose in the “AI hallucination” case in the Hangzhou Internet Court at the end of 2025.
“As AI becomes more embedded in shopping, marketing, and platform ecosystems, Chinese courts will likely need to address who is responsible for trademark use by AI systems and how traditional concepts like trademark use, confusion, and liability apply. This is an area brand owners should watch closely, as AI‑driven e-commerce is becoming increasingly common and is legally complex,” Ms. Xia adds.
IP practitioners will also be following the progress of the promised update to the Trademark Law and what it will mean for prosecution and enforcement.
China is in the process of its most significant revision to the Trademark Law since 2019, with a draft amendment released for public consultation on December 27, 2025, by the National People’s Congress.
Shen Changyu, the head of CNIPA, said in the official China Daily newspaper that: “The draft amendment, which contains 84 articles, focuses on tightening oversight over trademark agencies and practitioners, further clarifying standards for identifying malicious registrations and specifying corresponding penalties.”
“The most critical issue going forward will be whether the revised Trademark Law will be enacted next year, and how it will reshape examination standards, judicial practice, and brand protection strategies,” says Mr. Yang.
The revised legislation and more groundbreaking litigation at the intersection between IP and technology ensure that China will continue to be a focus for brand owners from around the world.
"AI‑driven e-commerce is becoming increasingly common and is legally complex."
- Helen Xia | Hogan Lovells (China)
