China’s SPC Releases New Batch of Guiding Cases Covering IP, Trade and Other Areas
Published 11 August 2025
Xia Yu
On 31 July 2025, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (SPC) released 12 Guiding Cases on the Equal Protection of Private Enterprises and Entrepreneurs’ Legitimate Rights and Interests (“Guiding Cases”). These cases demonstrate how the courts in China uphold the principles of legality and equality in adjudicating disputes involving private enterprises, safeguarding their rights and innovation, providing normative guidance, and fostering sustainable development. This article highlights four of these guiding cases. They are Guiding Cases 7 and 8 on intellectual property protection, Guiding Case 9 on reputation rights defense, and Guiding Case 10 on safeguarding the interests of domestic private enterprises in export trade disputes.
Guiding Case 7: A dispute over ownership of invention patent rights between Mou Medical Technology Company v. Mou Biotechnology Company and Hu Mou – This case involved two micro-enterprises founded by several returned researchers, aiming to advance the research, development, and application of mRNA technology in the biopharmaceutical field. The second-instance trial was presided over by a vice president of the SPC and held in an open court session, resulting in a comprehensive settlement of this case and related disputes on the spot. The adjudication of this case demonstrated the courts’ focus on supporting privately owned innovative enterprises, encouraging innovation, and valuing talent.
Mou Biotechnology Company (“Rui Mou Company”) was the patentee of an invention titled a preparation method and application of mRNA Formulation for Osteoarthritis Drug Preparation (“Patent in Dispute”). Its inventor was Hu Mou, the controller of Rui Mou Company. Mou Medical Technology Company (“Zhen Mou Company”) filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Patent in Dispute was a service invention completed by Hu Mou during his employment at Zhen Mou Company. Hu Mou had applied for and obtained authorization of the Patent in Dispute in the name of Rui Mou Company, thereby infringing upon Zhen Mou Company’s legitimate rights and interests. Zhen Mou Company requested a judgment declaring that the patent right belonged to it. The court of first instance held that Zhen Mou Company had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Patent in Dispute was a service invention completed by Hu Mou during his tenure at Zhen Mou Company and therefore dismissed the claims. Zhen Mou Company appealed.
The court of second instance considered that the case involved multiple returned researchers, several enterprises and institutions, and cutting-edge technologies in the biopharmaceutical field. Considering the significant role of mRNA technology in developing new quality productive forces in the pharmaceutical sector, as well as the close collaboration among three researchers who had returned to China to establish ventures jointly and contributed substantially to the R&D of innovative mRNA-based drugs, the court adopted a mediation-prioritized approach. Through on-site investigations and circuit trials, the court actively facilitated mediation, leading the parties to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving this case along with the other related disputes. This ended a two-year conflict and series of disputes between the parties, enabling them to resume cooperation at the forefront of biopharmaceutical innovation.
Guiding Case 8: An administrative dispute over invalidation of a trademark right between Hui Mou Company v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) & Heng Mou Company – This case clarifies that domain names qualify as prior civil rights protectable under Article 32 of Trademark Law of the People‘s Republic of China (“Trademark Law”). The court invalidated the disputed trademark for infringing Hui Mou Company’s prior domain name rights and constituting preemptive registration of a mark already in use by Hui Mou Company, demonstrating robust judicial protection for private enterprises’ brand development.
Heng Mou Company is the registrant of the “DataFocus” trademark No. 39744963 (“Disputed Trademark”) for the services including computer software design and computer software maintenance in Class 42. Hui Mou Company filed an invalidation request with CNIPA, arguing that the Disputed Trademark infringed its prior domain name rights and constituted a preemptive registration of its “DataFocus” mark, which had been used and gained recognition.
The court held that a domain name may constitute a prior civil right under Article 32 of the Trademark Law if it was registered earlier, has acquired a reputation, the goods/services it represents are similar to those covered by the disputed trademark, and the marks are sufficiently similar to cause consumer confusion. The evidence submitted confirmed that the domain name of “datafocus.ai” had gained a reputation through Hui Mou Company’s extensive use and promotion before the Disputed Trademark’s filing date. The Disputed Trademark’s use on services analogous to Hui Mou Company’s data analysis and software applications was likely to confuse relevant consumers regarding the source of services. Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Trademark infringed upon the prior domain name rights of Hui Mou Company. In addition, the mark of the Disputed Trademark is identical to Hui Mou Company’s prior-used “DataFocus” mark. The designated services are closely related to Hui Mou Company’s data analysis and software services. As a competitor in the software industry, Heng Mou Company should have been aware of Hui Mou Company’s prior mark but failed to avoid registration. The court held this conduct objectively likely to cause confusion and subjectively improper, thus satisfying the criteria for preemptive registration under Article 32 of the Trademark Law.
Guiding Case 9: An online tort liability dispute between Mou Terminal Co., Ltd. v. Jiang Mou – A product reviewer shall bear a reasonable duty of care when reposting information to avoid misleading public opinion with false reviews. In this case, the court ruled that the reviewer blogger was liable for tortious acts arising from false statements, thereby regulating deceptive online product evaluations while safeguarding the lawful rights of private enterprises.
Jiang Mou, a verified “Digital Gadgets Blogger” on a social media platform with over 100,000 followers, posted product reviews about electronic devices manufactured by Mou Terminal Co., Ltd. (“Company B”) between February and May 2021. Without conducting actual tests, Jiang Mou selectively reposted negative comments, derogatory remarks, or fabricated untested reviews, using terms such as “trash emperor” and “garbage” to mock and disparage Company B’s products. Company B alleged that Jiang Mou's false reviews infringed its reputation rights and requested the court to order Jiang Mou to delete the defamatory content, issue a public apology, and compensate for economic losses.
The court held that Jiang Mou, as a self-proclaimed “Digital Gadgets Blogger”, lacked an objective basis for his original comments, having neither tested nor experienced Company B’s products, nor conducted reasonable verification. His statements exceeded the bounds of fair criticism and constituted malicious commentary aimed at disparagement. Further, Jiang Mou failed to exercise the duty of care commensurate with his influence when reposting information, instead selectively editing negative or insulting content with evident subjective malice. The court ruled that Jiang Mou’s fabricated and spliced reviews infringed Company B’s reputation rights, ordering him to apologize and pay RMB 86,000 (Equivalent to US$ 11,971) in damages and litigation costs. The judgment became final as neither party appealed.
Guiding Case 10: An international sales contract dispute between Mou Spanish Company v. Mou Zhejiang Company – This case exemplifies the judicial application of international rules where parties failed to expressly agree on product quality standards. The court interpreted Article 35(2) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) [ https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09951_e_ebook.pdf ] in good faith, contextualizing it within the treaty’s purpose, and upheld the “reasonable quality standard” doctrine to protect the legitimate interests of a Chinese export enterprise.
From March 2014 to October 2018, Mou Zhejiang Company (“Zhejiang Company”) exported warning triangles worth over US$ 1 million to Mou Spanish Company (“Spanish Company”). Pro forma invoices specified product models, quantity, and unit price but omitted quality standards (e.g., ECER27). During 2018–2020, the parties continued trading without written quality terms. In May 2019, the Spanish Company confirmed continuing transactions under “originally agreed specifications”. A dispute later arose over compliance with ECER27, prompting the Spanish Company to sue in the Changshan County People’s Court in Zhejiang province of China, demanding US$ 248,000 in refunds and interest.
As an international sales dispute between parties from CISG Contracting States without a chosen governing law, the CISG applied ex officio. Absent explicit quality terms, conformity was assessed under Article 35(2) of the CISG. The court identified three judicial approaches to determining quality standards. They are the merchantability standard, average quality standard, and reasonable quality standard. The court adopted the reasonable quality standard, noting that the Spanish Company never previously contested quality during four years of dealings, and ECER27 was neither contractually agreed nor a mandatory standard. The goods met general usability requirements and could be resold globally, aligning with the Spanish Company’s reasonable expectations at contract formation. Therefore, the court dismissed the claims of the Spanish Company. No appeals were filed.
Guiding Case 7: A dispute over ownership of invention patent rights between Mou Medical Technology Company v. Mou Biotechnology Company and Hu Mou – This case involved two micro-enterprises founded by several returned researchers, aiming to advance the research, development, and application of mRNA technology in the biopharmaceutical field. The second-instance trial was presided over by a vice president of the SPC and held in an open court session, resulting in a comprehensive settlement of this case and related disputes on the spot. The adjudication of this case demonstrated the courts’ focus on supporting privately owned innovative enterprises, encouraging innovation, and valuing talent.
Mou Biotechnology Company (“Rui Mou Company”) was the patentee of an invention titled a preparation method and application of mRNA Formulation for Osteoarthritis Drug Preparation (“Patent in Dispute”). Its inventor was Hu Mou, the controller of Rui Mou Company. Mou Medical Technology Company (“Zhen Mou Company”) filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Patent in Dispute was a service invention completed by Hu Mou during his employment at Zhen Mou Company. Hu Mou had applied for and obtained authorization of the Patent in Dispute in the name of Rui Mou Company, thereby infringing upon Zhen Mou Company’s legitimate rights and interests. Zhen Mou Company requested a judgment declaring that the patent right belonged to it. The court of first instance held that Zhen Mou Company had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Patent in Dispute was a service invention completed by Hu Mou during his tenure at Zhen Mou Company and therefore dismissed the claims. Zhen Mou Company appealed.
The court of second instance considered that the case involved multiple returned researchers, several enterprises and institutions, and cutting-edge technologies in the biopharmaceutical field. Considering the significant role of mRNA technology in developing new quality productive forces in the pharmaceutical sector, as well as the close collaboration among three researchers who had returned to China to establish ventures jointly and contributed substantially to the R&D of innovative mRNA-based drugs, the court adopted a mediation-prioritized approach. Through on-site investigations and circuit trials, the court actively facilitated mediation, leading the parties to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving this case along with the other related disputes. This ended a two-year conflict and series of disputes between the parties, enabling them to resume cooperation at the forefront of biopharmaceutical innovation.
Guiding Case 8: An administrative dispute over invalidation of a trademark right between Hui Mou Company v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) & Heng Mou Company – This case clarifies that domain names qualify as prior civil rights protectable under Article 32 of Trademark Law of the People‘s Republic of China (“Trademark Law”). The court invalidated the disputed trademark for infringing Hui Mou Company’s prior domain name rights and constituting preemptive registration of a mark already in use by Hui Mou Company, demonstrating robust judicial protection for private enterprises’ brand development.
Heng Mou Company is the registrant of the “DataFocus” trademark No. 39744963 (“Disputed Trademark”) for the services including computer software design and computer software maintenance in Class 42. Hui Mou Company filed an invalidation request with CNIPA, arguing that the Disputed Trademark infringed its prior domain name rights and constituted a preemptive registration of its “DataFocus” mark, which had been used and gained recognition.
The court held that a domain name may constitute a prior civil right under Article 32 of the Trademark Law if it was registered earlier, has acquired a reputation, the goods/services it represents are similar to those covered by the disputed trademark, and the marks are sufficiently similar to cause consumer confusion. The evidence submitted confirmed that the domain name of “datafocus.ai” had gained a reputation through Hui Mou Company’s extensive use and promotion before the Disputed Trademark’s filing date. The Disputed Trademark’s use on services analogous to Hui Mou Company’s data analysis and software applications was likely to confuse relevant consumers regarding the source of services. Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Trademark infringed upon the prior domain name rights of Hui Mou Company. In addition, the mark of the Disputed Trademark is identical to Hui Mou Company’s prior-used “DataFocus” mark. The designated services are closely related to Hui Mou Company’s data analysis and software services. As a competitor in the software industry, Heng Mou Company should have been aware of Hui Mou Company’s prior mark but failed to avoid registration. The court held this conduct objectively likely to cause confusion and subjectively improper, thus satisfying the criteria for preemptive registration under Article 32 of the Trademark Law.
Guiding Case 9: An online tort liability dispute between Mou Terminal Co., Ltd. v. Jiang Mou – A product reviewer shall bear a reasonable duty of care when reposting information to avoid misleading public opinion with false reviews. In this case, the court ruled that the reviewer blogger was liable for tortious acts arising from false statements, thereby regulating deceptive online product evaluations while safeguarding the lawful rights of private enterprises.
Jiang Mou, a verified “Digital Gadgets Blogger” on a social media platform with over 100,000 followers, posted product reviews about electronic devices manufactured by Mou Terminal Co., Ltd. (“Company B”) between February and May 2021. Without conducting actual tests, Jiang Mou selectively reposted negative comments, derogatory remarks, or fabricated untested reviews, using terms such as “trash emperor” and “garbage” to mock and disparage Company B’s products. Company B alleged that Jiang Mou's false reviews infringed its reputation rights and requested the court to order Jiang Mou to delete the defamatory content, issue a public apology, and compensate for economic losses.
The court held that Jiang Mou, as a self-proclaimed “Digital Gadgets Blogger”, lacked an objective basis for his original comments, having neither tested nor experienced Company B’s products, nor conducted reasonable verification. His statements exceeded the bounds of fair criticism and constituted malicious commentary aimed at disparagement. Further, Jiang Mou failed to exercise the duty of care commensurate with his influence when reposting information, instead selectively editing negative or insulting content with evident subjective malice. The court ruled that Jiang Mou’s fabricated and spliced reviews infringed Company B’s reputation rights, ordering him to apologize and pay RMB 86,000 (Equivalent to US$ 11,971) in damages and litigation costs. The judgment became final as neither party appealed.
Guiding Case 10: An international sales contract dispute between Mou Spanish Company v. Mou Zhejiang Company – This case exemplifies the judicial application of international rules where parties failed to expressly agree on product quality standards. The court interpreted Article 35(2) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) [ https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09951_e_ebook.pdf ] in good faith, contextualizing it within the treaty’s purpose, and upheld the “reasonable quality standard” doctrine to protect the legitimate interests of a Chinese export enterprise.
From March 2014 to October 2018, Mou Zhejiang Company (“Zhejiang Company”) exported warning triangles worth over US$ 1 million to Mou Spanish Company (“Spanish Company”). Pro forma invoices specified product models, quantity, and unit price but omitted quality standards (e.g., ECER27). During 2018–2020, the parties continued trading without written quality terms. In May 2019, the Spanish Company confirmed continuing transactions under “originally agreed specifications”. A dispute later arose over compliance with ECER27, prompting the Spanish Company to sue in the Changshan County People’s Court in Zhejiang province of China, demanding US$ 248,000 in refunds and interest.
As an international sales dispute between parties from CISG Contracting States without a chosen governing law, the CISG applied ex officio. Absent explicit quality terms, conformity was assessed under Article 35(2) of the CISG. The court identified three judicial approaches to determining quality standards. They are the merchantability standard, average quality standard, and reasonable quality standard. The court adopted the reasonable quality standard, noting that the Spanish Company never previously contested quality during four years of dealings, and ECER27 was neither contractually agreed nor a mandatory standard. The goods met general usability requirements and could be resold globally, aligning with the Spanish Company’s reasonable expectations at contract formation. Therefore, the court dismissed the claims of the Spanish Company. No appeals were filed.