Beijing High Court Rules Prominent Use of Great Wall Imagery Constitutes Trademark Infringement
Published 17 August 2026
Yu Du
On 30 June 2026, the Beijing High People’s Court rendered its retrial judgment in a trademark infringement dispute concerning the prominent use of Great Wall imagery on liquor packaging. In Civil Judgment (2026) Jing Min Zai No. 13 (the full decision is available on China Judgements Online at https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/ after logging in), the Court reversed the appellate judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and reinstated the first-instance finding of infringement.
The case is significant for its treatment of two closely related issues: when the use of a public-domain cultural image may constitute trademark use, and how the reputation of an earlier trademark and the defendant’s prior knowledge affect the assessment of infringement.
Case History
COFCO Group Co., Ltd. (COFCO) owns a portfolio of registered trademarks incorporating the “GREATWALL” in Chinese characters, in English and images of the Great Wall, including Trademark Registration Nos. 70855, 1474477, 3244778 and 3244779, all registered in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages.
Trademark No. 70855 was originally registered on 20 July 1974 for goods including baijiu, liqueurs and wine. On 12 November 2004, the mark was recognised as a well-known trademark in relation to wine.
The dispute concerned seven varieties of Beijing erguotou baijiu produced by Badaling Liquor Company and sold through an online retailer. The front labels prominently featured relatively large images of the Great Wall in the central or background area, together with “Beijing erguotou” in Chinese characters, Badaling Liquor’s own JinBadaling mark and the producer’s name.
COFCO conducted a notarised online purchase in early 2023 and subsequently brought trademark infringement proceedings before the Fengtai District People’s Court of Beijing Municipality.
First and Second Instance Judgments
The Fengtai District People’s Court held that the Great Wall imagery was prominently used on the front labels and was capable of distinguishing the commercial origin of the goods. It therefore constituted trademark use.
Taking into account the reputation of COFCO’s Great Wall trademarks, particularly Trademark No. 70855, the court found that the accused imagery was similar to the four asserted trademarks and was used on identical or similar Class 33 alcoholic beverages. It therefore found trademark infringement.
Badaling Liquor was ordered to cease the infringement and pay RMB 200,000 in damages and RMB 6,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses. The retailer was also ordered to cease sales, although the court accepted its lawful-source defence against monetary liability.
Badaling Liquor and the retailer appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
The appellate court reversed. It emphasised that trademark use under Article 48 of the PRC Trademark Law requires use for the purpose of identifying the source of goods.
The appellate court considered that the bottle labels already clearly identified the source through Badaling Liquor’s own trademark and corporate name. It regarded the Great Wall imagery principally as a means of beautifying the packaging and reflecting geographical or cultural associations with the Badaling area. It also noted that the Great Wall is part of China’s historical and cultural heritage and that its basic imagery belongs to the public domain.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court therefore held that the Great Wall image did not constitute trademark use and dismissed COFCO’s claims.
COFCO applied for retrial. On 15 December 2025, the Beijing High People’s Court decided to retry the case itself.
Retrial Judgment and Legal Analysis
The Beijing High People’s Court disagreed with the appellate court’s approach.
First, it held that the accused products prominently used Great Wall imagery in the central area of the bottle labels. Although the image had a decorative function, it also performed the function of identifying commercial origin. The use therefore constituted trademark use within the meaning of Article 48 of the Trademark Law.
This is a central aspect of the judgment. Decorative use and trademark use are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The presence of another house mark, corporate name or other source identifier does not automatically prevent an additional prominent image from simultaneously functioning as a trademark. The assessment depends on the image’s placement, prominence and overall commercial presentation.
Second, the Court held that the public-domain nature of the Great Wall did not exclude trademark protection. The Great Wall itself remains available for legitimate use as a historical, cultural and visual resource. However, registered trademarks based on public-domain elements may still receive protection for their particular composition and expression.
The accused images consisted of watchtowers, walls, mountains and vegetation forming a winding Great Wall landscape. The Court found that their constituent elements and overall visual impression were similar to COFCO’s Trademark Nos. 70855, 1474477, 3244778 and 3244779. The accused baijiu products were also identical or similar to the alcoholic beverages covered by those registrations.
In assessing similarity and likelihood of confusion, the Court relied on the principles under the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Interpretation on Trademark Civil Disputes, including consideration of the registered trademarks’ distinctiveness and reputation. Trademark No. 70855 had been recognised as well known in 2004 and had acquired substantial market recognition.
Third, the Court placed considerable weight on Badaling Liquor’s prior knowledge.
In 2016, the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board invalidated Badaling Liquor’s Trademark No. 11033981, finding it similar to COFCO’s earlier Great Wall trademarks on identical or similar alcoholic beverages. The Beijing High People’s Court therefore considered that Badaling Liquor had been aware of COFCO’s Great Wall trademarks and the reputation of Trademark No. 70855 since at least 2016.
Its subsequent prominent use of similar Great Wall imagery on baijiu products was therefore found to demonstrate an intention to take advantage of the reputation of COFCO’s trademark.
The Court concluded that the use was likely to cause consumers to misunderstand the commercial origin of the products or to assume a connection with COFCO, and therefore constituted trademark infringement.
As the evidence did not establish either the infringer’s profits or COFCO’s actual losses, the Court upheld the first-instance award of RMB 200,000 in damages plus RMB 6,000 in reasonable expenses.
Comment
The decision provides useful guidance on the boundary between legitimate use of public-domain cultural imagery and trademark infringement. It does not grant any trademark owner a monopoly over the Great Wall itself; rather, it confirms that a public-domain motif may still function as a trademark when its particular presentation, prominence and commercial context identify source and create a likelihood of confusion with an earlier registered mark. The case also shows that the existence of another brand name on packaging is not necessarily sufficient to avoid infringement, and that prior administrative or judicial findings putting a party on notice of earlier rights may become important evidence of subjective intent in subsequent disputes.
For brand owners and packaging designers alike, clearance of cultural or geographical imagery should therefore consider not only whether the underlying subject matter is free to use, but also how the image is expressed and used in the relevant market.
The case is significant for its treatment of two closely related issues: when the use of a public-domain cultural image may constitute trademark use, and how the reputation of an earlier trademark and the defendant’s prior knowledge affect the assessment of infringement.
Case History
COFCO Group Co., Ltd. (COFCO) owns a portfolio of registered trademarks incorporating the “GREATWALL” in Chinese characters, in English and images of the Great Wall, including Trademark Registration Nos. 70855, 1474477, 3244778 and 3244779, all registered in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages.
Trademark No. 70855 was originally registered on 20 July 1974 for goods including baijiu, liqueurs and wine. On 12 November 2004, the mark was recognised as a well-known trademark in relation to wine.
The dispute concerned seven varieties of Beijing erguotou baijiu produced by Badaling Liquor Company and sold through an online retailer. The front labels prominently featured relatively large images of the Great Wall in the central or background area, together with “Beijing erguotou” in Chinese characters, Badaling Liquor’s own JinBadaling mark and the producer’s name.
COFCO conducted a notarised online purchase in early 2023 and subsequently brought trademark infringement proceedings before the Fengtai District People’s Court of Beijing Municipality.
First and Second Instance Judgments
The Fengtai District People’s Court held that the Great Wall imagery was prominently used on the front labels and was capable of distinguishing the commercial origin of the goods. It therefore constituted trademark use.
Taking into account the reputation of COFCO’s Great Wall trademarks, particularly Trademark No. 70855, the court found that the accused imagery was similar to the four asserted trademarks and was used on identical or similar Class 33 alcoholic beverages. It therefore found trademark infringement.
Badaling Liquor was ordered to cease the infringement and pay RMB 200,000 in damages and RMB 6,000 in reasonable enforcement expenses. The retailer was also ordered to cease sales, although the court accepted its lawful-source defence against monetary liability.
Badaling Liquor and the retailer appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
The appellate court reversed. It emphasised that trademark use under Article 48 of the PRC Trademark Law requires use for the purpose of identifying the source of goods.
The appellate court considered that the bottle labels already clearly identified the source through Badaling Liquor’s own trademark and corporate name. It regarded the Great Wall imagery principally as a means of beautifying the packaging and reflecting geographical or cultural associations with the Badaling area. It also noted that the Great Wall is part of China’s historical and cultural heritage and that its basic imagery belongs to the public domain.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court therefore held that the Great Wall image did not constitute trademark use and dismissed COFCO’s claims.
COFCO applied for retrial. On 15 December 2025, the Beijing High People’s Court decided to retry the case itself.
Retrial Judgment and Legal Analysis
The Beijing High People’s Court disagreed with the appellate court’s approach.
First, it held that the accused products prominently used Great Wall imagery in the central area of the bottle labels. Although the image had a decorative function, it also performed the function of identifying commercial origin. The use therefore constituted trademark use within the meaning of Article 48 of the Trademark Law.
This is a central aspect of the judgment. Decorative use and trademark use are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The presence of another house mark, corporate name or other source identifier does not automatically prevent an additional prominent image from simultaneously functioning as a trademark. The assessment depends on the image’s placement, prominence and overall commercial presentation.
Second, the Court held that the public-domain nature of the Great Wall did not exclude trademark protection. The Great Wall itself remains available for legitimate use as a historical, cultural and visual resource. However, registered trademarks based on public-domain elements may still receive protection for their particular composition and expression.
The accused images consisted of watchtowers, walls, mountains and vegetation forming a winding Great Wall landscape. The Court found that their constituent elements and overall visual impression were similar to COFCO’s Trademark Nos. 70855, 1474477, 3244778 and 3244779. The accused baijiu products were also identical or similar to the alcoholic beverages covered by those registrations.
In assessing similarity and likelihood of confusion, the Court relied on the principles under the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Interpretation on Trademark Civil Disputes, including consideration of the registered trademarks’ distinctiveness and reputation. Trademark No. 70855 had been recognised as well known in 2004 and had acquired substantial market recognition.
Third, the Court placed considerable weight on Badaling Liquor’s prior knowledge.
In 2016, the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board invalidated Badaling Liquor’s Trademark No. 11033981, finding it similar to COFCO’s earlier Great Wall trademarks on identical or similar alcoholic beverages. The Beijing High People’s Court therefore considered that Badaling Liquor had been aware of COFCO’s Great Wall trademarks and the reputation of Trademark No. 70855 since at least 2016.
Its subsequent prominent use of similar Great Wall imagery on baijiu products was therefore found to demonstrate an intention to take advantage of the reputation of COFCO’s trademark.
The Court concluded that the use was likely to cause consumers to misunderstand the commercial origin of the products or to assume a connection with COFCO, and therefore constituted trademark infringement.
As the evidence did not establish either the infringer’s profits or COFCO’s actual losses, the Court upheld the first-instance award of RMB 200,000 in damages plus RMB 6,000 in reasonable expenses.
Comment
The decision provides useful guidance on the boundary between legitimate use of public-domain cultural imagery and trademark infringement. It does not grant any trademark owner a monopoly over the Great Wall itself; rather, it confirms that a public-domain motif may still function as a trademark when its particular presentation, prominence and commercial context identify source and create a likelihood of confusion with an earlier registered mark. The case also shows that the existence of another brand name on packaging is not necessarily sufficient to avoid infringement, and that prior administrative or judicial findings putting a party on notice of earlier rights may become important evidence of subjective intent in subsequent disputes.
For brand owners and packaging designers alike, clearance of cultural or geographical imagery should therefore consider not only whether the underlying subject matter is free to use, but also how the image is expressed and used in the relevant market.