On 14 December 2023, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“Beijing IP Court”) held a press conference to inform about the particular trial work of regulating trademark registration in bad faith. During the trial, the Beijing IP Court utilized the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law to handle malicious registrations by the law, intensified its efforts to combat malicious registrations, and issued typical cases on regulating malicious trademark registrations. The following is a summary of the ten typical cases of regulating trademark registration in bad faith and the main points of the trial.
Case 1: A large number of applications for trademark registration within a short period, without proving the real intention of use or providing other reasonable reasons, constitutes a “malicious registration not for use” within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Trademark Law.
[Main Point of the Decision]
When a civil entity applies for a trademark registration, it shall have a real intention to use the trademark to satisfy its demand for trademark use, and the act of applying for a trademark registration shall be reasonable and justified. To examine and determine whether the applied-for trademark belongs to the situation referred to in Article 4 (1) of the Trademark Law, the number of registered trademarks applied for by the applicant or natural persons, legal persons, or other organizations related to the applicant, the classes of designated use, the trademark transactions, the industry of the applicant, the business situation, and the situation that the applied-for trademark is the same as or similar to the trademarks of other people which have a certain degree of popularity shall be taken into consideration. If a large number of trademarks are applied for registration in a short period in multiple classes of goods or services, obviously exceeding the needs of normal production and operation, and if the applicant cannot prove that there is a real intention to use the trademarks or other justifiable reasons, the trademarks shall be recognized as malicious registrations that are not to use the trademarks.
[Case History]
The disputed trademark “Wang Zi” (“Prince in Chinese) was applied for registration by a liquor company on 14 May 2021, and was designated to be used in the goods of rice wine and alcoholic beverages (except beer) in Class 33, etc. The CNIPA considered that the trademark covered in the trademark application violated the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Trademark Law and, therefore, rejected the application for registration.
The Beijing IP Court of First Instance found that a liquor company was established on 26 August 2020, and its business scope included liquor business, food sales, and daily necessities. The company applied for more than 340 trademarks in various classes of goods or services, including Classes 3, 18, 32, 33, and 35, of which it applied for more than 300 trademarks between 2020 and 2021 alone. In the second instance, the Beijing Higher People’s Court additionally found that the 300-odd trademarks used by the company included “Mai Ba He” (“Maybach in Chinese”) and other trademarks similar to those of others.
The Court of First and Second Instance both held that the evidence in the case could not prove the actual use of the disputed trademark, that the company had a real intention to use the trademark, or that there were other justifiable reasons. According to the period of the application for registration of the trademark, the number of applications, and the classes of goods and services designated for use, it can be concluded that the application for registration of a large number of trademarks, including the disputed trademark, has exceeded the needs of standard business activities, and constitutes the situation of “bad faith application for registration of trademarks without the purpose of use” as referred to in the Article 4 (1) of the Trademark Law.
Case 2: If the trademark applicant’s current or former legal representatives, senior management personnel, and other staff members have worked for another person/entity, and they know that the trademark was previously used by the other person/entity, and they apply for registration the similar trademark on similar goods, it violates the provisions of Article 15 (2) of the Trademark Law.
[Main Point of the Decision]
The “other relations” stipulated in Article 15 (2) of the Trademark Law refers to the existence of specific relations other than those specified in Article 15 (1), where the applicant can know the presence of the unregistered trademark of another person and should avoid it voluntarily, including the relations between the trademark applicant and the prior user, such as kinship, labor relations, and the proximity of the business address, etc. The current or former legal representative, senior management, and other staff members of the trademark applicant have served in the office of another person/entity, which constitutes the “other relationships” stipulated in this paragraph. If a trademark applicant, through the above relationships, knowingly registers a similar trademark on similar goods, it violates the provisions of Article 15 (2) of the Trademark Law.
[Case History]
The disputed trademark was applied for registration by an educational company on 16 March 2018 and is approved for use in training, education, arranging, and organizing conferences and meetings in Class 41. The CNIPA held that the registration of the disputed trademark did not constitute the situation referred to in Article 15 (2) of the 2013 Trademark Law but was in violation of the provisions of Article 32 of the Law, and therefore invalidated the disputed trademark for the services of training and education and upheld the registration for the remaining services. The Beijing IP Court held at first instance that the evidence in the case proved that a specific college’s “Fa Shu” logo had been used before the application filing date of the disputed trademark and had a particular influence. The disputed trademark and the college’s “Fa shu” logo constitute similar marks. The services designated by the disputed trademark, such as “arranging and organizing meetings and cultural activities”, are identical to those used by the college’s “Fa Shu” logo, such as the opening of the school year and the organization of cultural activities. The services authorized by the disputed mark, such as “arranging and organizing meetings and cultural events”, are similar to those used by the institute’s “FATSU” mark, such as opening ceremony and MBA education and training. The institute had a labor-management relationship with He Mou, the former legal representative of an education company. The fact that an education company applied for registration of a similar trademark for similar services, even though it was aware of the institute’s prior use of the “Fa Shu” mark, constituted the situation referred to in Article 15(2) of the 2013 Trademark Law. After the judgment of the first instance was rendered, the parties filed no appeal, and the decision of the first instance came into effect.
Case 3: If a trademark applicant applies for registration of a trademark containing a geographical indication but cannot prove that the goods designated for use originate from the scope of protection of products protected by geographical indications, it shall be held that the use of the trademark in dispute is likely to mislead the public.
[Main Point of the Decision]
The provisions of the Trademark Law on the protection of geographical indications are aimed at avoiding the use of trademarks containing geographical indications to mislead the public about goods that do not originate from the region indicated by the geographical indications to ensure that the specific quality, reputation or other characteristics of the goods using trademarks containing geographical indications are mainly determined by the natural factors or human factors of the region indicated by the geographical indications. Suppose there is no evidence to prove that the goods originate from the scope of protection of products protected by geographical indications but still apply for registering a trademark containing a geographical indication. In that case, it shall be recognized that using the trademark will likely mislead the public.
[Case History]
The disputed trademark “Lao Ying Cha” (“Eagle Tea” in Chinese) was applied for registration by a tea company on 20 April 2015 and was designated for use in Class 30 “tea” and other goods. The CNIPA held that the registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 16(1) of the 2013 Trademark Law and ruled that the disputed trademark was invalid. The Beijing IP Court of the first instance found that on 31 July 2012, the former General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) approved “Lao Ying Cha” as a nationally protected geographical indication product and that the scope of protection of the covered geographical indication product was the administrative area under the jurisdiction of six townships, namely, Meiluo Township, Fengle Township, Wajiao Township, Caoke Township, Liziping Township, and Xinmian Township in Shimian County, Sichuan Province. The Court of First Instance held that the evidence in the case showed that “Lao Ying Cha” had been approved as a nationally protected geographical indication product before the date of the trademark application and that the scope of protection of the covered geographical indication product was the administrative area under the jurisdiction of six townships in Meiluo Township of Shimian County. As a kind of tea, the taste and quality of “Lao Ying Cha” are closely related to the environment in which it grows. However, the tea company is located in Chengdu. The technical guidance of eagle tea (black tea) processing technology is located in Qionglai. The evidence in the case is not sufficient to prove that the tea products authorized by the trademark “Lao Ying Cha” originated from the six townships of Shimian County and that the use of the trademark in the case is easy to mislead the public and the public concerned misperceive the place of origin of the goods. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the 2013 Trademark Law. The first instance judgment rejected the litigation request of a tea company. The Beijing Higher People’s Court upheld the original decision.
Case 4: The names of influential TV programs constitute prior rights under Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and the trademark applicant shall be subject to the regulation of Article 32 of the Trademark Law if it tries to register the same or similar trademark on the same or similar goods.
[Main Point of the Decision]
Television programs have the attributes of goods, and the names of influential television programs fall into the scope of protection of “prior rights” as stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law, as the terms of significant television programs fall into the scope of “commodities with certain influence” as specified in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, the trademark applicant’s registration of the same or similar trademark on the same or similar goods with the same or similar name of a TV program with specific influence will easily mislead the relevant public into believing that the trademark applicant and the owner of the prior right have a particular connection, which constitutes the situation of “damaging the existing prior right of another person” as stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law.
[Case History]
The disputed trademark “ Faraway Home, In-depth Travel Advisor, Journey Ahead” was applied for registration by a cultural industry company on 5 March 2014 and was designated for use in the goods of periodicals, books, news publications, and other goods in Class 16. The CNIPA held that the registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 32 of the Trademark Law, which stipulates that the registration shall not damage the existing prior rights of others, and therefore decided not to approve the registration of the disputed trademark. The Beijing IP Court of the first instance held that “Home in a Faraway Place” is a large-scale daily travel program broadcast by CCTV’s Chinese International Channel and that the evidence in the case proved that the program “Faraway Home” started broadcasting before the date of the application for the trademark, and was known to the relevant public, thus forming a solid correspondence with CCTV. CCTV enjoys prior rights and interests in the “Faraway Home” trade name. The disputed trademark included the name of the program “ Faraway Home”, which was similar to the trade name of another person with a particular influence. Judging from the actual use of the disputed trademark by the cultural industry company, Journey Ahead is a travel magazine closely related to the program Journey Ahead. Using the disputed trademark will easily mislead the relevant public into thinking that CCTV provides the magazine or has a relationship with CCTV, thus causing confusion and misidentification of the source of the goods. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 32 of the Trademark Law, which stipulates that the trademark application “shall not damage the existing prior rights of others.” Given the above, the first instance judgment rejected the litigation request of the cultural industry company. The parties filed no appeal, and the decision of the first instance came into effect.
Case 5: Where a trademark applicant applies for registration of a large number of trademarks, such as terms of public events and names of public cultural resources, to unduly appropriate public resources, this constitutes “obtaining registrations by other improper means” within the meaning of Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law.
[Main Point of the Decision]
The “obtaining registration by other improper means” referred to in Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Trademark Law refers to the act of trademark registration that disturbs the order of trademark registration, harms the public interest, improperly occupies public resources, or seeks improper claims by other means than deception. The trademark applicants applying for registration of many trademarks in terms of public events and names of public cultural resources have the subjective intention of improperly occupying public resources. They shall be recognized as obtaining registration by other improper means as stipulated in Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law.
[Case History]
The trademark “Quan Cheng Bai Hua Yuan” was applied for registration by Li Mou on 6 March 2020 and was designated to be used in services such as clothing rental and matchmaking services in Class 45, etc. The CNIPA held that the registration of the trademark violated the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law. The CNIPA held that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law and therefore ruled that the disputed trademark was invalid. The Beijing IP Court held in the first instance that “Quan Cheng Bai Hua Yuan” was the name of an idyllic complex project operated by zhu Jiayu company and that the disputed trademark “Quan Cheng Bai Hua Yuan” was the same as the name of the project. In addition to the disputed trademark, Li also applied for registration of more than 170 trademarks for a variety of goods and services, including “Square Cabin”, “Retrograde”, “Vulcan Mountain”, “Thunder God Mountain”, “Zhangshen Mountain”, “Zhangshen Mountain”, and “The Garden Complex”. The trademarks of Li Mou were related to epidemics, including “Square Cabin”, “Retrograde Traveler”, “Vulcan Mountain”, “Thunder Mountain”, “Zhangqiu Ancient City” and “Quanxiang Medicine Valley”, or trademarks similar to the names of projects developed by the Zhangqiu District of Jinan. Li’s behavior was beyond the usual purpose of commercial use, violated the principle of honesty and good faith, disturbed the regular order of trademark registration, and undermined the market environment of fair competition. Therefore, registering the disputed trademark constituted “obtaining registration by other improper means,” referred to in Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law. Given the above, the judgment of the first instance rejected Li’s litigation request. The parties filed no appeal, and the decision of the first instance came into effect.
Case 6: To achieve the purpose of circumventing the law, the trademark agency applied for the registration of the trademark in the name of its former executive, and the act of trademark registration can be regarded as the act of the trademark agency, which shall be subject to the constraints of Article 19 (4) of the Trademark Law.
[Main Point of the Decision]
Article 19 (4) of the Trademark Law specifies the circumstances under which trademark agencies are prohibited from registering trademarks. The legislative purpose is to protect public interests and prevent trademark agencies from taking advantage of the convenience or benefit of being familiar with the trademark registration process, maliciously snatching other people’s trademarks for profit, and disturbing the order of trademark registration. Prohibiting trademark agencies from applying for trademark registration in the name of the subject with which they have a specific relationship is in line with the legislative purpose of this provision. To regulate the chaos of individual trademark agencies assisting or even directly engaging in malicious application and malicious hoarding, and to maintain good market economic order and trademark management order, the behavior of trademark agencies applying for registered trademarks under the name of their former executives can be regarded as the behavior of trademark agencies and shall be subject to the constraints of Article 19(4) of the Trademark Law.
[Case History]
The disputed trademark “Bu Bu Gao” was applied for registration by Yao Mou on 4 July 2019 and was approved to be used in Class 29 of “snacks mainly of fruits and vegetables, preserved fruits, wooden ear” and other goods. The CNIPA held that registering the disputed trademark violated Article 19 (4) of the Trademark Law, and ruled that the disputed trademark should be invalidated. The Beijing IP Court of the first instance found that Yao was a shareholder and senior manager of an intellectual property agency founded in 2012 and that he ceased to be a senior manager of the company on 14 June 2019, about 20 days before the date of filing of the application for the disputed trademark. The court of first instance held that, although Yao was not a trademark agency, he had a specific relationship with the trademark agency. The vast majority of the 60-odd trademarks applied for registration by Yao in multiple classes of goods and services were registered by the trademark agency. At the same time, several trademarks under Yao’s name were being listed for sale on the trademark trading platform. From the evidence in the case, it could be concluded that the trademark agency applied for the disputed trademark to circumvent the law under the name of Yao. Yao’s trademark registration behavior can be regarded as the behavior of the trademark agency, which violated the principle of honesty and credit and should be subject to the constraints of Article 19 (4) of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the first instance judgment rejected Yao’s litigation request. The parties filed no appeal, and the decision of the first instance came into effect.
Case 7: About the behavior of the perpetrator’s malicious cross-class snatching of others’ well-known trademarks in the internet environment, the subjective malice of the perpetrator in the internet environment, whether the audiences of the relevant goods or services are highly overlapped, and other factors should be fully considered to determine the scope of cross-class protection of well-known trademarks reasonably
[Main Point of the Decision]
In determining whether a trademark in the online environment constitutes a well-known trademark, full consideration shall be given to the characteristics and speed of information dissemination in the mobile internet environment, the establishment of brand influence and the scope of expansion, etc., and comprehensive consideration shall be given to all the elements for the determination of a well-known trademark, and the length of time the trademark has been used shall not be considered in a one-sided and mechanical manner. In case the perpetrator maliciously snatches a well-known trademark in the internet environment across categories, the subjective degree of malice of the perpetrator and whether the audiences of the relevant goods or services are highly overlapped should be fully considered to reasonably determine the scope of protection of the well-known trademark across classes and increase the strength of the regulation on the malicious act of snatching a famous trademark.
[Case History]
The disputed trademark, “Kuai Shou Lao Tie,” was applied for registration by a wine sales company on 29 August 2017 and is authorized to be used in Class 35 for “accounting” services. The cited trademark was registered by an information technology company on 14 November 2015 and is approved for use in Class 41 for services such as “program production and entertainment.” The CNIPA held that registering the disputed trademark did not violate Article 13 of the Trademark Law and, therefore, ruled that the disputed trademark should be maintained. The Beijing IP Court held at first instance that the evidence in the case proved that before the filing date of the disputed trademark, the cited trademark owned by the information technology company had been widely used and publicized for an extended period and was widely known to the relevant public, constituting a trademark for services such as “program production, entertainment”, and so on. The disputed trademark “Kuai Shou Lao Tie” contains the distinctive part “Kuai Shou” covered by the cited mark “Kuai Shou & Device,” and “Lao Tie” is also the trademark owned by the information technology company. However, there is a difference between the services of “accounting” designated by the disputed trademark and the services of “program production and entertainment” under the cited trademark. However, consider that the Kuaishou platform provides “program production and entertainment” services for ordinary consumers. The “program production” service is mainly for video producers on the platform, and the “entertainment” service is primarily for regular viewers. Because there are as many as 700 million registered users on the Kuaishou platform, which is a short-video platform that almost all people participate in, the objects of its services will inevitably include the objects of the “accounting” services, and the objects of the abovementioned services overlap with each other. In addition, based on the massive traffic flow of the Kuaishou platform, subjects engaged in “accounting” services may also be publicized through the platform, and there may be a connection between the two in terms of service content. Therefore, when the relevant public sees the disputed trademark used for the service of “accounting”, they will quickly establish a considerable degree of connection with the trademark of “Kuai Shou”, and mistakenly believe that the service originates from the information technology company or there is a specific connection. This will weaken the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark and cause damage to the legitimate interests of an information technology company. Therefore, registering the disputed trademark constituted the situation referred to in Article 13 (3) of the Trademark Law, and should be invalidated according to the law. After the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, all parties did not file an appeal, and the decision of the first instance came into effect.
Case 8: The perpetrator, knowing that the trademark approved for registration has significant rights defects, still grabs unfair commercial interests and damages the legitimate rights and interests of other people for the primary purpose of sending warning letters and filing industrial and commercial complaints, which is a severe violation of the principle of honesty and good faith and constitutes an abuse of trademark rights.
[Main Point of the Decision]
The trademark registration and use application shall be based on the principle of honesty and good faith. The trademark registrant knows that the trademark approved for registration has significant rights defects, but still with the primary purpose of seizing improper commercial interests and harming the legitimate rights and interests of others, sending warning letters to others, filing industrial and commercial complaints, etc., which is a severe violation of the principle of honesty and good faith, and constitutes the abuse of trademark rights. To protect the legitimate rights and interests of the infringed party and to deal with the necessary expenses incurred by the trademark registrant for the abuse of trademark rights, the trademark registrant shall bear the liability for compensation by the law.
[Case History]
A tourism company sued and claimed that a science and technology company applied for registration of the trademark of “Gubei Water Town” on the goods of liquor in class 33 and clothing in class 25, knowing that the company’s enterprise name of “Gubei Water Town” and the popularity of the unregistered trademark of the company. It also sent a warning letter of infringement to the tourism company. It filed a trademark infringement complaint with the industry and commerce, requesting the tourism company to stop using the trademark “Gubei Water Town” on the package of wine products. The behavior of the technology company infringed the legitimate rights and interests of the tourism company, resulting in the tourism company’s legitimate application for registration of the trademark “Gubei Water Town” being hindered, its behavior disrupted the order of trademark registration, but also violated the principle of honesty and good faith, constituting unfair competition, and therefore the tourism company sued to the court, requesting the technology company be ordered to compensate for its economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 500,000 and to publish a statement to eliminate the influence. The Beijing IP Court of the second instance held that the technology company had obtained the registration of the trademark “Gubei Water Town” when it knew that its application for registration of the trademark was unfair and that it also knew that there were significant defects in the basis of the right to register the trademark when it sent the warning letter of infringement and filed the industrial and commercial complaint. However, it still exercised the exclusive right to use the trademark for the primary purpose of acquiring improper commercial interests and damaging the legitimate rights and interests of others. The behavior of the technology company seriously violated the principle of honesty and good faith and constituted unfair competition by abusing the trademark right. The necessary expenses incurred by the tourism company to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests and to deal with the abuse of trademark rights by the technology company were the direct economic losses caused by the behavior above, and the technology company should bear the liability for compensation by the law. In summary, the Beijing IP Court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court.
Case 9: A party violates the principle of good faith by filing a trademark infringement lawsuit against another person’s legitimate use of a trademark right that was not obtained in good faith, and the act constitutes an abuse of rights
[Main Point of the Decision]
The acquisition and exercise of trademark rights shall comply with the principle of good faith. The party violated the principle of good faith by filing infringement claims for other people’s legitimate use based on the trademark rights under non-bona fide acquisition, not only to the detriment of the legitimate rights and interests of others but also disrupt the market order of fair competition, constituting an abuse of rights, the litigation request.
[Case History]
Ma Mou sued, claiming that on 6 May 2008, it applied for registration of the trademark “jiaoren 骄人” in the goods of jewelry in class 14. The trademark was approved for registration on 28 March 2010, and it used the trademark to produce and sell the “jiaoren” brand series of diamonds. Ma Mou founded a jewelry company on the Jingdong platform, selling the “jiaoren” series of rings and necklaces. Ma Mou considered that the jewelry company and Jingdong company’s behavior infringed on its trademark rights. Therefore, it sued the court, requesting it to order a jewelry company and Jingdong to stop the infringement immediately and compensate the company for the economic loss and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 50,000. The Beijing IP Court held that taking into account the distinctiveness and degree of similarity of the disputed mark, the subjective intent of Ma’s application for registration of the trademark “jiaoren 骄人”, the actual use of the disputed mark, and the registration of other trademarks applied for by Ma, it was able to find that Ma’s application for registration of the trademark “jiaoren 骄人” violated the principle of honesty and good faith, and the basis of his claim, in this case, is not justified. At the same time, the prior practical judgment has been found that the jewelry company’s affiliates had previously used “jiaoren” as the product’s name before Ma applied for the “jiaoren 骄人” trademark and rejected Ma’s litigation request. Now, Ma again used the same reason to file this lawsuit against the jewelry company for selling the “Jiaoren” series of diamond ornaments on Jingdong, which was not subjectively bona fide. The evidence in the case was insufficient to prove Ma’s true intention or fact of the use of the trademark “jiaoren 骄人,” and it constituted an abuse of rights for Ma to file a trademark infringement lawsuit against the jewelry company that had legitimately used the trademark “jiaoren” and demanded compensation. In summary, the Beijing IP Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment of the Beijing Xicheng People’s Court.
Case 10: The infringer, from the trademark to product packaging, publicity language, sales methods, and other aspects, fully imitated the prior registered well-known brand and conducted the “real and fake mixed sales” behavior. The infringer’s subjective malice in attaching to the goodwill of the right holder is obvious, and the consequences of the infringement are serious, and punitive damages should be applied.
[Main Point of the Decision]
The “brand effect” is comprehensive and complex, embedded not only in a single trademark but also in all aspects of the production and operation of the enterprise, which can become the carrier of brand goodwill. Therefore, unlike the infringement of a single trademark, “all-round” brand imitation will considerably blow the brand image, rights, and interests. Specific behavior patterns may include registering and using trademarks similar to the right holder’s trademark, copying packaging and decorations, mixing and matching “genuine” and “fake” products for sale, and using misleading advertising slogans. Punitive damages should be applied to severe such infringement of “all-round” imitation of a well-known prior brand, which is not only conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder and the rights and interests of consumers but also helps to create an honest and orderly order of competition in the market.
[Case History]
A liqueur company is the trademark owner of a series of trademarks, including “Ye Ge”, which are authorized to be used for goods such as alcohol in Class 33. The liqueur company claimed that the other liquor company had used, without authorization, logos similar to its trademarks, such as “Ye Ge Ha Gu Lei Si” “YEGE,” and “Ye Ge Hunter” on goods such as “liqueurs, beer, and functional drinks”. It also copied the packaging and decoration of its products. It used misleading publicity, which constituted infringement of its trademark right and unfair competition, and should be held liable for stopping the infringement, eliminating the influence, and compensating the loss. The Beijing IP Court of the first instance held that the “Ye Ge” series trademark of a liqueur company had been well known to the relevant public in China after a long period of publicity and use and had already constituted a well-known trademark for “liqueur” goods. The liquor company has used the trademarks of “YEGE” and “Ye Ge Hunter,” which are similar to the trademark of the liqueur company, on the goods of “liqueur, beer, and functional drinks” without authorization. In addition, by imitating the packaging and decoration of a liqueur company’s similar products, using misleading publicity terms, and mixing the infringing products with the liqueur company’s similar products for sale, the above behaviors infringed on the liqueur company’s exclusive right to use its registered trademark, and at the same time constituted unfair competition.Moreover, after the liqueur company had issued several rights defense statements and sent warning letters, the liquor company continued to carry out the infringing acts with obvious intent to infringe. Based on the above facts, punitive damages should be applied to the liquor company. In conclusion, the first instance judgment ruled that the liquor company should stop the infringement, eliminate the influence, and compensate the liqueur company for the economic loss of RMB 10 million. After judgment was made in the first instance, the liquor company filed an appeal, and the Beijing Higher People’s Court rejected the request and upheld the original decision.