China Trademark Cases: The Adjudicative Boundaries and Judicial Development of Cross-Class Trademark Protection – the “EVISU” Trademark Infringement Dispute
Published 12 May 2026
Sarah Xuan
On April 20, 2026, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court rendered Civil Judgment (2024) Yue Min Zhong No. 3719 in the trademark infringement dispute involving Shenzhen Bao’an District Xixiang Qijiang Electronics Factory, Chen Shaohua, Shantou Chaoyang District Gurao Qijiang Electronics Factory, Luo Wujie, and Jierpu International Co., Ltd. The case centered on whether the registered “EVISU” trademarks could obtain cross-class protection as well-known trademarks for Class 9 earphone goods and related domain-name use, beyond the Class 25 clothing goods for which they were registered. On the basis of its examination of the reputation of the marks at issue, the manner in which the accused signs were used, the subjective state of the accused parties, the degree of association between the goods, and the resulting harm, the court of second instance upheld the judgment of the court of first instance ordering cessation of infringement, elimination of adverse effects, and damages of RMB 1 million.
The core of this case was not merely the question of whether a clothing trademark may receive cross-class protection extending to earphone goods. Rather, the case presented in a concentrated manner the adjudicative approach adopted by the people’s courts when dealing with such issues as conflicts of rights between registered trademarks, the necessity of well-known trademark protection, the defense based on use of a registered trademark, domain-name infringement, joint infringement, and discretionary assessment of damages where obstruction of evidence is present. It is particularly noteworthy that the court of second instance did not simply follow the court of first instance’s finding that the trademarks at issue had already become well known before March 26, 2013. Instead, by reference to the actual timing and continuation of the accused acts, it re-examined whether the trademarks at issue had attained well-known status during the relevant period, thereby making the determination of well-known trademark status more consistent with the institutional requirements of “case-by-case determination, passive determination, and determination as necessary.”
The following is a specific analysis of the court’s judgment in this case.
I. Basic Facts As to the basic facts, Jierpu was the owner of the No. 1656885 “EVISU” word mark and the No. 4740257 composite word-and-device mark, both of which were approved for use on goods in Class 25, including clothing, shoes, and hats. The “EVISU” brand originated in the clothing field and had been continuously operated in Mainland China through directly operated stores, franchised stores, e-commerce platforms, celebrity endorsements, media reports, advertising placements, and other means. The evidence in the case showed that, around 2012 and 2013, the relevant licensees had already developed revenue, advertising expenditure, and an offline sales network of a certain scale, and had gradually entered major e-commerce platforms such as Tmall and JD.com. The foregoing facts constituted an important basis for the court’s evaluation of the reputation, market goodwill, and degree of awareness among the relevant public in respect of the trademarks at issue.
The business operations of the accused parties presented a relatively complex pattern combining online and offline activities. On March 26, 2013, Luo Wujie applied to register the No. 12323415 “Evisu” trademark for goods including earphones in Class 9, and the mark was approved for registration in 2015. Thereafter, Chen Shaohua, Luo Wujie, and the two individually owned businesses in Shenzhen and Shantou respectively operated by them manufactured, sold, and promoted earphone goods bearing signs such as “Evisu” and “EVISU” on platforms including 1688, Taobao, Pinduoduo, Douyin, WeChat, Facebook, and Instagram, as well as on the website “www.evisuhf.com.” Evidence such as notarized purchases of physical goods, platform pages, product packaging, promotional videos, contact information, and back-end information corroborated one another, on the basis of which the court found a factual basis for joint operations and the joint commission of the accused acts among the accused parties.
In this case, clothing and earphones were not similar goods under the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services, which was also one of the bases for the defense raised by the accused parties. The accused parties contended that they had once enjoyed the exclusive right to use the registered “Evisu” trademark on Class 9 earphone goods, that clothing and earphones were clearly different in category, and that Jierpu could not as a matter of course prohibit their use across classes. Jierpu, however, argued that the “EVISU” trademarks had acquired a relatively high degree of reputation on clothing goods, and that the accused parties’ use of identical or similar signs on earphone goods was sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there was authorization, a co-branding arrangement, an affiliated enterprise relationship, or other commercial connection between the parties, and improperly exploited the market goodwill of the trademarks at issue.
II. Procedural History and Issues in Dispute Jierpu brought an action before the court of first instance, requesting that Shenzhen Qijiang Electronics Factory, Chen Shaohua, Shantou Qijiang Electronics Factory, and Luo Wujie be ordered immediately to cease manufacturing, selling, and promoting earphone goods bearing signs such as “Evisu” and “EVISU,” to cease using the domain name “www.evisuhf.com,” and to assume liability for damages, reasonable expenses, elimination of adverse effects, and other remedies. After trial, the court of first instance held that the “EVISU” trademarks at issue constituted well-known trademarks, and that the accused parties’ use of the relevant signs on earphone goods and in the domain name infringed Jierpu’s exclusive right to use its registered trademarks. The court accordingly ordered the accused parties to cease the infringement, eliminate adverse effects, and pay a total of RMB 1 million as compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses.
Shenzhen Qijiang Electronics Factory, Chen Shaohua, Shantou Qijiang Electronics Factory, and Luo Wujie appealed to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court, being dissatisfied with the judgment of first instance. Their principal grounds of appeal included the following: first, Jierpu’s registration of trademarks for Class 25 clothing goods did not mean that it could prohibit others from using signs in all classes of goods; second, the “EVISU” trademarks had not attained well-known status when Luo Wujie applied for the Class 9 “Evisu” trademark; third, the accused parties used the mark on the basis that the registered trademark was valid, had reasonable reliance, and had no intent to infringe; fourth, even if infringement were established, the amount of damages awarded at first instance was excessive, and punitive factors should not have been considered; and fifth, Jierpu’s action was time-barred.
Accordingly, the disputed issues in this case were concentrated mainly on four levels. First, whether Jierpu’s action in this case exceeded the limitation period. Second, whether it was necessary and possible for the “EVISU” trademarks at issue to be recognized as well-known trademarks, and what point in time should serve as the benchmark for well-known status. Third, whether the accused parties could still constitute infringement notwithstanding their former ownership of the Class 9 registered “Evisu” trademark, and whether they could assert reliance interests arising from the use of a registered trademark. Fourth, although the earphone goods at issue and clothing goods were not similar goods, whether the use of the accused signs and domain name was sufficient to cause damage to the distinctiveness and market goodwill of the well-known trademarks and, on that basis, required the accused parties to bear civil liabilities such as cessation of infringement, compensation for losses, and elimination of adverse effects.
III. Court Hearing and Analysis (I) Determination of the Limitation Period With respect to the limitation period, the court’s reasoning reflected an integrated understanding of the relationship between continuing infringement and administrative procedures for the confirmation of rights. After becoming aware of the accused registered trademark and the related acts of use, Jierpu did not remain idle in exercising its rights for a prolonged period. Rather, it continuously sought relief through administrative procedures such as invalidation and cancellation for non-use for three consecutive years. The No. 12323415 “Evisu” trademark was ultimately cancelled in the non-use cancellation proceedings, and the exclusive right to use that trademark was terminated as of the date of the announcement. The court held that, where the relevant administrative procedures were ongoing, the right holder’s acts of rights enforcement were sufficient to show that it had not abandoned its request for protection of rights; at the same time, the accused signs were still being continuously used when the action was filed. Therefore, it was inappropriate in this case to mechanically take the time when the right holder first became aware of the registration or use of the accused trademark as the starting point for calculating the limitation period.
This approach has strong practical reasonableness. In trademark disputes, administrative procedures for confirmation of rights and civil infringement litigation are often intertwined. A right holder’s prior filing of an invalidation or cancellation application against an accused registered trademark may be driven by procedural needs to resolve a conflict of rights, or may serve to lay the rights foundation for subsequent civil litigation. If, during that process, the limitation period for civil litigation were mechanically deemed to continue running, the right holder would be forced to repeatedly initiate civil litigation before the administrative confirmation of rights had stabilized, which would neither facilitate the one-time resolution of disputes nor avoid duplication of judicial and administrative resources. Therefore, the court examined the continuing state of infringement, the administrative enforcement process, and whether the right holder had been idle in enforcing its rights in combination, thereby striking an appropriate balance between the stability function of the limitation system and the practical needs of intellectual property protection.
(II) Necessity of Determining Well-Known Trademark Status The point of greatest institutional significance in this case lies in the court of second instance’s examination of the necessity of determining well-known trademark status and the relevant temporal benchmark. Under the Trademark Law and the relevant judicial interpretations, the determination of a well-known trademark should follow the principles of case-by-case determination, passive determination, and determination as necessary. In other words, the people’s court does not confirm in the abstract whether a given trademark is “well known.” Rather, when handling a specific dispute, only where the case cannot be resolved without such a determination will the court make a factual finding as to the well-known status of the trademark at issue.
In this case, Jierpu’s registered trademarks were approved for use on Class 25 clothing goods, whereas the accused goods were Class 9 earphones; the two were not identical or similar goods. If ordinary rules governing infringement of registered trademarks alone were applied, it would be difficult to address the cross-class use directly. Therefore, in order for Jierpu to stop the accused parties from using signs such as “Evisu” and “EVISU” on earphone goods, it had to prove that its registered trademarks at issue had attained well-known status and that the accused use was sufficient to mislead the public or damage the interests of the owner of the well-known trademarks. It is in this sense that the case presented a necessity to determine well-known trademark status.
The court of first instance found that Jierpu’s two “EVISU” trademarks had already constituted well-known trademarks on clothing goods before March 26, 2013. The court of second instance conducted a more prudent review of that finding and held that the court of first instance lacked sufficient reasoning for finding well-known status before that time point, and corrected that finding. However, the court of second instance did not therefore deny cross-class protection. Instead, it further examined whether the trademarks at issue had become well known before January 7, 2018, by reference to the actual time when the accused acts occurred. Taking into account the scale of operations of “EVISU” clothing within China, the duration of use, publicity and promotion, market goodwill, and the radiating effect on the Greater Bay Area and the Mainland market of the goodwill accumulated in overseas regions such as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the court found that, before the accused acts occurred, the trademarks at issue had attained a degree of familiarity among the relevant public within China.
This adjudicative approach deserves affirmation. The determination of a well-known trademark is not an abstract confirmation of trademark status, but serves the necessity of protection in resolving a specific case. If the filing date of the accused trademark were taken as the sole temporal benchmark, cases involving conflicts of rights between registered trademarks would easily fall into a binary separation of “administrative confirmation of rights - civil infringement”: on the one hand, the accused party might obtain a formal defensive advantage by relying on the registered appearance it once obtained; on the other hand, the facts of well-known status on which the right holder relies for cross-class protection may have been fully formed at the time when the actual infringement occurred. By shifting the focus of assessment to the actual occurrence and continuation of the accused acts, the court of second instance both avoided an excessive inference, unsupported by sufficient evidence, that the marks had been well known before 2013 and returned well-known trademark protection to its functional orientation of “stopping actual harm.”
(III) Dynamic Examination of Well-Known Status The determination of well-known trademark status has both factual and temporal attributes. Whether a particular trademark is well known at a particular point in time cannot simply be inferred backward from its later reputation; nor can a trademark’s long-term continued well-known status be presumed as a matter of course merely because it once had a relatively high reputation. In this case, the court of second instance demonstrated an awareness of such dynamic examination. The court not only examined whether the trademarks at issue had become well known before the accused acts occurred, but further examined whether they maintained the corresponding reputation during the period in which the accused acts continued.
This analysis is particularly important for the protection of international brands in the Chinese market. The operational focus, market visibility, sales channels, and publicity strategies of international brands may change as their business arrangements evolve. If a court recognizes subsequent continuous well-known status solely on the basis of early evidence, the factual foundation for the finding of well-known status is easily weakened. Conversely, if the court completely disregards the continuity of goodwill accumulated by the brand over time, it may underestimate the market influence of a well-known trademark. By comprehensively examining evidence including sales operations, media reports, advertising, social media dissemination, offline stores, and e-commerce channels, this case established a relatively balanced method of assessment between “historical accumulation” and “current influence.”
At the institutional level, such dynamic examination helps correct two misunderstandings in practice regarding well-known trademarks. First, a well-known trademark is not a fixed and immutable honorific title, but a factual state determined on the basis of evidence in a specific case. Second, the determination of well-known status should neither be expanded without limit nor be overly conservative; the key lies in determining whether, at the time the specific dispute arose, the relevant public had stably associated the particular sign with the right holder’s goods, services, and goodwill. The cross-class protection granted in this case on that basis properly reflected the functional orientation of the well-known trademark system.
(IV) Defense Based on Use of a Registered Trademark One of the core defenses raised by the accused parties was that they had once owned the Class 9 registered “Evisu” trademark and used it on earphone goods on the basis of that registered status, and therefore had reasonable reliance and should not bear infringement liability. On its face, this defense concerned the stability of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark; in substance, it concerned the conflict between the appearance of rights in a registered trademark and the protection of a prior well-known trademark.
In this case, the No. 12323415 “Evisu” trademark was indeed in a valid registered state before the cancellation announcement on November 13, 2022. However, the court did not on that basis automatically exclude the possibility that the use constituted infringement. First, in addition to using “Evisu,” the accused parties also used signs such as “EVISU,” which were not entirely consistent with the form of their registered trademark, and some uses had exceeded the standardized form of the approved registered trademark. Second, Jierpu’s two prior requests for invalidation had been rejected mainly because clothing and earphones did not constitute identical or similar goods; this did not mean that the administrative authority had confirmed that the accused parties enjoyed a legitimate interest in use in the sense of cross-class protection for well-known trademarks. Third, in light of the facts that the accused parties continuously registered and used signs highly similar to “EVISU,” established business entities or domain names containing relevant wording, and promoted and sold earphone goods on multiple platforms, the court could make an adverse evaluation of their subjective intent to free-ride.
This determination has important exemplary significance. Although the registered trademark system certainly serves the functions of publicity, public credibility, and stability of transactional expectations, reliance interests are not protected unconditionally. The acquisition and exercise of trademark rights must comply with the principle of good faith. If the trademark registration itself has a background of imitating another’s prior well-known sign, and the subsequent use is not intended to establish the user’s own independent goodwill, but instead continuously exploits the source-identifying power and market goodwill of another’s trademark, then the alleged reliance interest should not take priority over the protective interest in the prior well-known trademark. In other words, registration is not automatically legitimate, and use is not automatically exempt from liability; the key remains whether the acquisition and exercise of rights conform to honest commercial ethics.
(V) Determination of Cross-Class Infringement The difficulty in cross-class protection of well-known trademarks lies in the fact that the accused goods and the goods for which the right holder’s trademark is approved are usually not similar, making ordinary confusion rules difficult to apply directly. Therefore, the court must conduct a comprehensive assessment from such perspectives as the distinctiveness and reputation of the well-known trademark, the degree of association between the goods, the overlap among the relevant public, the manner in which the accused signs are used, and the possibility of misleading the public.
In this case, although earphones and clothing belonged to different classes of goods and had clearly different functions and purposes, they were not entirely isolated from one another in actual consumption scenarios. With the increasing fashion orientation and trend orientation of consumer electronics, earphones are no longer merely functional electronic devices; their appearance, brand, wearing scenarios, and consumer groups may all become connected with fashionable apparel. In particular, where “EVISU,” as a clothing brand with strong trend attributes, had already formed a certain degree of awareness among young consumers, the accused parties’ use of identical or highly similar signs on earphone goods was likely to cause the relevant public to make associations with brand co-branding, authorized production, cross-over collaboration, or affiliated operations.
On that basis, the court found that the accused signs constituted reproduction or imitation of the well-known trademarks at issue, improperly exploited the market goodwill of the well-known trademarks, and might weaken the stable association between the trademarks at issue and Jierpu. This finding did not simply break through the limitations of goods classification, but rather made a substantive assessment of the “degree of association” on the basis of the specific market context. It shows that, against the backdrop of increasingly common new consumption patterns and cross-over brand collaborations, whether the categories of goods are similar is no longer the sole basis for determining public association. For commercial signs with relatively high reputation and strong individuality, cross-class use may cause not traditional direct confusion as to source, but confusion as to authorization, confusion as to commercial connection, and dilution of goodwill.
(VI) Evaluation of Domain-Name Infringement The domain-name infringement portion likewise reflected the court’s emphasis on protecting trademark interests in the online environment. The principal identifying portion of the accused domain name “www.evisuhf.com” was “evisuhf,” in which “evisu” differed from the word portion of the “EVISU” trademarks at issue only in letter case, and was sufficient to form a strong visual and phonetic association. The accused parties used that domain name to promote and sell earphone goods, thereby making the domain name no longer merely a technical address, but a sign with an obvious commercial-identification and traffic-diversion function.
In domain-name disputes, determining whether an accused domain name constitutes infringement generally requires examination of whether the rights basis is valid, whether the principal part of the domain name is identical or similar to another’s trademark, whether the domain-name holder enjoys legitimate interests, and whether the registration and use are malicious. In this case, Jierpu’s rights basis in the trademarks at issue was valid, and the marks had attained well-known status; the core identifying portion of the accused domain name was highly similar to the trademarks at issue; the accused parties had no sufficient evidence to prove that they enjoyed independent legitimate interests in “evisu”; and, in light of their continuous use of the relevant signs in earphone goods, online-store names, promotional videos, and social media accounts, it could be found that their registration and use of the domain name had the subjective intent to free-ride on another’s goodwill.
This portion of the judgment demonstrates that, in the Internet commercial environment, the evaluation of trademark infringement cannot be confined to the use of signs on product packaging or sales pages, but should also include domain names, account names, short-video promotions, cross-border social media marketing, website introductions, and the like as part of an overall assessment. When online operators attract traffic through domain names or account names, they are essentially also using the source-identifying function of commercial signs. If that source-identifying function is built upon the reputation of another’s well-known trademark, it should be regulated by the Trademark Law and the relevant rules governing domain-name disputes.
(VII) Determination of Joint Infringement The determination of joint infringement liability is also instructive for practice. Chen Shaohua and Luo Wujie respectively operated individually owned businesses, and were highly connected through facts such as their marital relationship, joint establishment of a Hong Kong company, joint use of contact telephone numbers, joint operation of online stores, and joint publication of promotional content. The contact information, entity names, sources of goods, and promotional content appearing in the relevant online stores, websites, short-video accounts, social media pages, and product packaging overlapped with one another, which was sufficient to show that the accused parties were not using the relevant signs independently and incidentally, but were jointly manufacturing, selling, and promoting the accused goods under unified operational arrangements.
The court did not adhere rigidly to formal differences among the registered operators of the various platform stores, the nominal holders of accounts, or the forms of business operators. Instead, it conducted a substantive examination from the perspectives of operational control, attribution of interests, promotional content, source of goods, contact information, and prior statements made in administrative litigation, and then found that there was both a meeting of minds and a behavioral connection among the accused parties in jointly committing the infringement. This adjudicative method helps address the responsibility-avoidance phenomena commonly seen in online operations, such as the dispersion of business entities, fragmentation of accounts, and cross-over between domestic and overseas entities.
In e-commerce and social-media marketing scenarios, infringers often disperse operational traces through multiple online stores, multiple accounts, multiple individually owned businesses, or overseas companies, in an attempt to reduce the liability risk of any single entity. If a court were to rely only on industrial and commercial registration or platform authentication information, actual controllers could easily evade liability. By reconstructing the true operational relationship through the chain of evidence, this case reflected a penetrating and substantive approach to the determination of liability in intellectual property adjudication.
(VIII) Determination of Liability for Damages As to the amount of damages, punitive damages were not applied in this case. Instead, the court comprehensively determined RMB 1 million within the framework of statutory damages and discretionary damages. The court considered such factors as the reputation of the trademarks at issue, the duration of the infringement, the types of accused acts, the scale of platform sales and promotion, the subjective fault of the accused parties, and the reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder in enforcing its rights. Although the accused parties argued that some transactions were order brushing or false transactions and that the actual sales scale was relatively small, they did not submit key evidence capable of proving the true scale of operations, such as complete transaction back-end records, financial books, or account statements.
In intellectual property infringement cases, evidence such as infringing profits, sales data, profit margins, and transaction flows is usually in the possession of the infringer or the relevant platform. Even if the right holder actively adduces evidence through notarized purchases, webpage evidence preservation, screenshots of public promotions, and preservation of platform pages, it remains difficult to fully reconstruct the scale of infringement. If an infringer, on the one hand, denies the scale of sales and, on the other hand, refuses to submit key materials under its control without bearing any adverse consequence, the sanctioning and deterrent functions of the damages system would be significantly weakened.
In this case, through the rules on obstruction of evidence and a comprehensive discretionary method, the court converted the advantage of control over evidence into a corresponding adverse evaluation, which helps improve the structural problems of “difficulty in proving damages and low compensation” in intellectual property litigation. In particular, where the accused acts continued for a long period of time, the platform distribution was broad, the promotional channels were complex, and the subjective fault of the infringers was relatively obvious, even if the right holder could not precisely prove the amount of infringing profits, the court could still make a relatively sufficient assessment of damages on the basis of the existing evidence, the circumstances of infringement, and rules of experience.
Conclusion The core value of Guangdong Higher People’s Court Judgment (2024) Yue Min Zhong No. 3719 lies in its response, through a relatively refined temporal benchmark and method of balancing interests, to multiple key issues in the cross-class protection of well-known trademarks: well-known status should be dynamically examined around the specific timing of infringement; the defense based on use of a registered trademark must not conceal malicious free-riding; differences in goods classes do not automatically preclude protection for well-known trademarks; the use of commercial signs in domain names and multi-platform operations should be included in the overall evaluation; and obstruction of evidence may become an important consideration in determining liability for damages. This case has relatively high reference value for the future adjudication of cases involving conflicts of registered trademark rights, cross-class protection, multi-party infringement on online platforms, and proof of damages.
The core of this case was not merely the question of whether a clothing trademark may receive cross-class protection extending to earphone goods. Rather, the case presented in a concentrated manner the adjudicative approach adopted by the people’s courts when dealing with such issues as conflicts of rights between registered trademarks, the necessity of well-known trademark protection, the defense based on use of a registered trademark, domain-name infringement, joint infringement, and discretionary assessment of damages where obstruction of evidence is present. It is particularly noteworthy that the court of second instance did not simply follow the court of first instance’s finding that the trademarks at issue had already become well known before March 26, 2013. Instead, by reference to the actual timing and continuation of the accused acts, it re-examined whether the trademarks at issue had attained well-known status during the relevant period, thereby making the determination of well-known trademark status more consistent with the institutional requirements of “case-by-case determination, passive determination, and determination as necessary.”
The following is a specific analysis of the court’s judgment in this case.
I. Basic Facts As to the basic facts, Jierpu was the owner of the No. 1656885 “EVISU” word mark and the No. 4740257 composite word-and-device mark, both of which were approved for use on goods in Class 25, including clothing, shoes, and hats. The “EVISU” brand originated in the clothing field and had been continuously operated in Mainland China through directly operated stores, franchised stores, e-commerce platforms, celebrity endorsements, media reports, advertising placements, and other means. The evidence in the case showed that, around 2012 and 2013, the relevant licensees had already developed revenue, advertising expenditure, and an offline sales network of a certain scale, and had gradually entered major e-commerce platforms such as Tmall and JD.com. The foregoing facts constituted an important basis for the court’s evaluation of the reputation, market goodwill, and degree of awareness among the relevant public in respect of the trademarks at issue.
The business operations of the accused parties presented a relatively complex pattern combining online and offline activities. On March 26, 2013, Luo Wujie applied to register the No. 12323415 “Evisu” trademark for goods including earphones in Class 9, and the mark was approved for registration in 2015. Thereafter, Chen Shaohua, Luo Wujie, and the two individually owned businesses in Shenzhen and Shantou respectively operated by them manufactured, sold, and promoted earphone goods bearing signs such as “Evisu” and “EVISU” on platforms including 1688, Taobao, Pinduoduo, Douyin, WeChat, Facebook, and Instagram, as well as on the website “www.evisuhf.com.” Evidence such as notarized purchases of physical goods, platform pages, product packaging, promotional videos, contact information, and back-end information corroborated one another, on the basis of which the court found a factual basis for joint operations and the joint commission of the accused acts among the accused parties.
In this case, clothing and earphones were not similar goods under the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services, which was also one of the bases for the defense raised by the accused parties. The accused parties contended that they had once enjoyed the exclusive right to use the registered “Evisu” trademark on Class 9 earphone goods, that clothing and earphones were clearly different in category, and that Jierpu could not as a matter of course prohibit their use across classes. Jierpu, however, argued that the “EVISU” trademarks had acquired a relatively high degree of reputation on clothing goods, and that the accused parties’ use of identical or similar signs on earphone goods was sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there was authorization, a co-branding arrangement, an affiliated enterprise relationship, or other commercial connection between the parties, and improperly exploited the market goodwill of the trademarks at issue.
II. Procedural History and Issues in Dispute Jierpu brought an action before the court of first instance, requesting that Shenzhen Qijiang Electronics Factory, Chen Shaohua, Shantou Qijiang Electronics Factory, and Luo Wujie be ordered immediately to cease manufacturing, selling, and promoting earphone goods bearing signs such as “Evisu” and “EVISU,” to cease using the domain name “www.evisuhf.com,” and to assume liability for damages, reasonable expenses, elimination of adverse effects, and other remedies. After trial, the court of first instance held that the “EVISU” trademarks at issue constituted well-known trademarks, and that the accused parties’ use of the relevant signs on earphone goods and in the domain name infringed Jierpu’s exclusive right to use its registered trademarks. The court accordingly ordered the accused parties to cease the infringement, eliminate adverse effects, and pay a total of RMB 1 million as compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses.
Shenzhen Qijiang Electronics Factory, Chen Shaohua, Shantou Qijiang Electronics Factory, and Luo Wujie appealed to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court, being dissatisfied with the judgment of first instance. Their principal grounds of appeal included the following: first, Jierpu’s registration of trademarks for Class 25 clothing goods did not mean that it could prohibit others from using signs in all classes of goods; second, the “EVISU” trademarks had not attained well-known status when Luo Wujie applied for the Class 9 “Evisu” trademark; third, the accused parties used the mark on the basis that the registered trademark was valid, had reasonable reliance, and had no intent to infringe; fourth, even if infringement were established, the amount of damages awarded at first instance was excessive, and punitive factors should not have been considered; and fifth, Jierpu’s action was time-barred.
Accordingly, the disputed issues in this case were concentrated mainly on four levels. First, whether Jierpu’s action in this case exceeded the limitation period. Second, whether it was necessary and possible for the “EVISU” trademarks at issue to be recognized as well-known trademarks, and what point in time should serve as the benchmark for well-known status. Third, whether the accused parties could still constitute infringement notwithstanding their former ownership of the Class 9 registered “Evisu” trademark, and whether they could assert reliance interests arising from the use of a registered trademark. Fourth, although the earphone goods at issue and clothing goods were not similar goods, whether the use of the accused signs and domain name was sufficient to cause damage to the distinctiveness and market goodwill of the well-known trademarks and, on that basis, required the accused parties to bear civil liabilities such as cessation of infringement, compensation for losses, and elimination of adverse effects.
III. Court Hearing and Analysis (I) Determination of the Limitation Period With respect to the limitation period, the court’s reasoning reflected an integrated understanding of the relationship between continuing infringement and administrative procedures for the confirmation of rights. After becoming aware of the accused registered trademark and the related acts of use, Jierpu did not remain idle in exercising its rights for a prolonged period. Rather, it continuously sought relief through administrative procedures such as invalidation and cancellation for non-use for three consecutive years. The No. 12323415 “Evisu” trademark was ultimately cancelled in the non-use cancellation proceedings, and the exclusive right to use that trademark was terminated as of the date of the announcement. The court held that, where the relevant administrative procedures were ongoing, the right holder’s acts of rights enforcement were sufficient to show that it had not abandoned its request for protection of rights; at the same time, the accused signs were still being continuously used when the action was filed. Therefore, it was inappropriate in this case to mechanically take the time when the right holder first became aware of the registration or use of the accused trademark as the starting point for calculating the limitation period.
This approach has strong practical reasonableness. In trademark disputes, administrative procedures for confirmation of rights and civil infringement litigation are often intertwined. A right holder’s prior filing of an invalidation or cancellation application against an accused registered trademark may be driven by procedural needs to resolve a conflict of rights, or may serve to lay the rights foundation for subsequent civil litigation. If, during that process, the limitation period for civil litigation were mechanically deemed to continue running, the right holder would be forced to repeatedly initiate civil litigation before the administrative confirmation of rights had stabilized, which would neither facilitate the one-time resolution of disputes nor avoid duplication of judicial and administrative resources. Therefore, the court examined the continuing state of infringement, the administrative enforcement process, and whether the right holder had been idle in enforcing its rights in combination, thereby striking an appropriate balance between the stability function of the limitation system and the practical needs of intellectual property protection.
(II) Necessity of Determining Well-Known Trademark Status The point of greatest institutional significance in this case lies in the court of second instance’s examination of the necessity of determining well-known trademark status and the relevant temporal benchmark. Under the Trademark Law and the relevant judicial interpretations, the determination of a well-known trademark should follow the principles of case-by-case determination, passive determination, and determination as necessary. In other words, the people’s court does not confirm in the abstract whether a given trademark is “well known.” Rather, when handling a specific dispute, only where the case cannot be resolved without such a determination will the court make a factual finding as to the well-known status of the trademark at issue.
In this case, Jierpu’s registered trademarks were approved for use on Class 25 clothing goods, whereas the accused goods were Class 9 earphones; the two were not identical or similar goods. If ordinary rules governing infringement of registered trademarks alone were applied, it would be difficult to address the cross-class use directly. Therefore, in order for Jierpu to stop the accused parties from using signs such as “Evisu” and “EVISU” on earphone goods, it had to prove that its registered trademarks at issue had attained well-known status and that the accused use was sufficient to mislead the public or damage the interests of the owner of the well-known trademarks. It is in this sense that the case presented a necessity to determine well-known trademark status.
The court of first instance found that Jierpu’s two “EVISU” trademarks had already constituted well-known trademarks on clothing goods before March 26, 2013. The court of second instance conducted a more prudent review of that finding and held that the court of first instance lacked sufficient reasoning for finding well-known status before that time point, and corrected that finding. However, the court of second instance did not therefore deny cross-class protection. Instead, it further examined whether the trademarks at issue had become well known before January 7, 2018, by reference to the actual time when the accused acts occurred. Taking into account the scale of operations of “EVISU” clothing within China, the duration of use, publicity and promotion, market goodwill, and the radiating effect on the Greater Bay Area and the Mainland market of the goodwill accumulated in overseas regions such as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the court found that, before the accused acts occurred, the trademarks at issue had attained a degree of familiarity among the relevant public within China.
This adjudicative approach deserves affirmation. The determination of a well-known trademark is not an abstract confirmation of trademark status, but serves the necessity of protection in resolving a specific case. If the filing date of the accused trademark were taken as the sole temporal benchmark, cases involving conflicts of rights between registered trademarks would easily fall into a binary separation of “administrative confirmation of rights - civil infringement”: on the one hand, the accused party might obtain a formal defensive advantage by relying on the registered appearance it once obtained; on the other hand, the facts of well-known status on which the right holder relies for cross-class protection may have been fully formed at the time when the actual infringement occurred. By shifting the focus of assessment to the actual occurrence and continuation of the accused acts, the court of second instance both avoided an excessive inference, unsupported by sufficient evidence, that the marks had been well known before 2013 and returned well-known trademark protection to its functional orientation of “stopping actual harm.”
(III) Dynamic Examination of Well-Known Status The determination of well-known trademark status has both factual and temporal attributes. Whether a particular trademark is well known at a particular point in time cannot simply be inferred backward from its later reputation; nor can a trademark’s long-term continued well-known status be presumed as a matter of course merely because it once had a relatively high reputation. In this case, the court of second instance demonstrated an awareness of such dynamic examination. The court not only examined whether the trademarks at issue had become well known before the accused acts occurred, but further examined whether they maintained the corresponding reputation during the period in which the accused acts continued.
This analysis is particularly important for the protection of international brands in the Chinese market. The operational focus, market visibility, sales channels, and publicity strategies of international brands may change as their business arrangements evolve. If a court recognizes subsequent continuous well-known status solely on the basis of early evidence, the factual foundation for the finding of well-known status is easily weakened. Conversely, if the court completely disregards the continuity of goodwill accumulated by the brand over time, it may underestimate the market influence of a well-known trademark. By comprehensively examining evidence including sales operations, media reports, advertising, social media dissemination, offline stores, and e-commerce channels, this case established a relatively balanced method of assessment between “historical accumulation” and “current influence.”
At the institutional level, such dynamic examination helps correct two misunderstandings in practice regarding well-known trademarks. First, a well-known trademark is not a fixed and immutable honorific title, but a factual state determined on the basis of evidence in a specific case. Second, the determination of well-known status should neither be expanded without limit nor be overly conservative; the key lies in determining whether, at the time the specific dispute arose, the relevant public had stably associated the particular sign with the right holder’s goods, services, and goodwill. The cross-class protection granted in this case on that basis properly reflected the functional orientation of the well-known trademark system.
(IV) Defense Based on Use of a Registered Trademark One of the core defenses raised by the accused parties was that they had once owned the Class 9 registered “Evisu” trademark and used it on earphone goods on the basis of that registered status, and therefore had reasonable reliance and should not bear infringement liability. On its face, this defense concerned the stability of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark; in substance, it concerned the conflict between the appearance of rights in a registered trademark and the protection of a prior well-known trademark.
In this case, the No. 12323415 “Evisu” trademark was indeed in a valid registered state before the cancellation announcement on November 13, 2022. However, the court did not on that basis automatically exclude the possibility that the use constituted infringement. First, in addition to using “Evisu,” the accused parties also used signs such as “EVISU,” which were not entirely consistent with the form of their registered trademark, and some uses had exceeded the standardized form of the approved registered trademark. Second, Jierpu’s two prior requests for invalidation had been rejected mainly because clothing and earphones did not constitute identical or similar goods; this did not mean that the administrative authority had confirmed that the accused parties enjoyed a legitimate interest in use in the sense of cross-class protection for well-known trademarks. Third, in light of the facts that the accused parties continuously registered and used signs highly similar to “EVISU,” established business entities or domain names containing relevant wording, and promoted and sold earphone goods on multiple platforms, the court could make an adverse evaluation of their subjective intent to free-ride.
This determination has important exemplary significance. Although the registered trademark system certainly serves the functions of publicity, public credibility, and stability of transactional expectations, reliance interests are not protected unconditionally. The acquisition and exercise of trademark rights must comply with the principle of good faith. If the trademark registration itself has a background of imitating another’s prior well-known sign, and the subsequent use is not intended to establish the user’s own independent goodwill, but instead continuously exploits the source-identifying power and market goodwill of another’s trademark, then the alleged reliance interest should not take priority over the protective interest in the prior well-known trademark. In other words, registration is not automatically legitimate, and use is not automatically exempt from liability; the key remains whether the acquisition and exercise of rights conform to honest commercial ethics.
(V) Determination of Cross-Class Infringement The difficulty in cross-class protection of well-known trademarks lies in the fact that the accused goods and the goods for which the right holder’s trademark is approved are usually not similar, making ordinary confusion rules difficult to apply directly. Therefore, the court must conduct a comprehensive assessment from such perspectives as the distinctiveness and reputation of the well-known trademark, the degree of association between the goods, the overlap among the relevant public, the manner in which the accused signs are used, and the possibility of misleading the public.
In this case, although earphones and clothing belonged to different classes of goods and had clearly different functions and purposes, they were not entirely isolated from one another in actual consumption scenarios. With the increasing fashion orientation and trend orientation of consumer electronics, earphones are no longer merely functional electronic devices; their appearance, brand, wearing scenarios, and consumer groups may all become connected with fashionable apparel. In particular, where “EVISU,” as a clothing brand with strong trend attributes, had already formed a certain degree of awareness among young consumers, the accused parties’ use of identical or highly similar signs on earphone goods was likely to cause the relevant public to make associations with brand co-branding, authorized production, cross-over collaboration, or affiliated operations.
On that basis, the court found that the accused signs constituted reproduction or imitation of the well-known trademarks at issue, improperly exploited the market goodwill of the well-known trademarks, and might weaken the stable association between the trademarks at issue and Jierpu. This finding did not simply break through the limitations of goods classification, but rather made a substantive assessment of the “degree of association” on the basis of the specific market context. It shows that, against the backdrop of increasingly common new consumption patterns and cross-over brand collaborations, whether the categories of goods are similar is no longer the sole basis for determining public association. For commercial signs with relatively high reputation and strong individuality, cross-class use may cause not traditional direct confusion as to source, but confusion as to authorization, confusion as to commercial connection, and dilution of goodwill.
(VI) Evaluation of Domain-Name Infringement The domain-name infringement portion likewise reflected the court’s emphasis on protecting trademark interests in the online environment. The principal identifying portion of the accused domain name “www.evisuhf.com” was “evisuhf,” in which “evisu” differed from the word portion of the “EVISU” trademarks at issue only in letter case, and was sufficient to form a strong visual and phonetic association. The accused parties used that domain name to promote and sell earphone goods, thereby making the domain name no longer merely a technical address, but a sign with an obvious commercial-identification and traffic-diversion function.
In domain-name disputes, determining whether an accused domain name constitutes infringement generally requires examination of whether the rights basis is valid, whether the principal part of the domain name is identical or similar to another’s trademark, whether the domain-name holder enjoys legitimate interests, and whether the registration and use are malicious. In this case, Jierpu’s rights basis in the trademarks at issue was valid, and the marks had attained well-known status; the core identifying portion of the accused domain name was highly similar to the trademarks at issue; the accused parties had no sufficient evidence to prove that they enjoyed independent legitimate interests in “evisu”; and, in light of their continuous use of the relevant signs in earphone goods, online-store names, promotional videos, and social media accounts, it could be found that their registration and use of the domain name had the subjective intent to free-ride on another’s goodwill.
This portion of the judgment demonstrates that, in the Internet commercial environment, the evaluation of trademark infringement cannot be confined to the use of signs on product packaging or sales pages, but should also include domain names, account names, short-video promotions, cross-border social media marketing, website introductions, and the like as part of an overall assessment. When online operators attract traffic through domain names or account names, they are essentially also using the source-identifying function of commercial signs. If that source-identifying function is built upon the reputation of another’s well-known trademark, it should be regulated by the Trademark Law and the relevant rules governing domain-name disputes.
(VII) Determination of Joint Infringement The determination of joint infringement liability is also instructive for practice. Chen Shaohua and Luo Wujie respectively operated individually owned businesses, and were highly connected through facts such as their marital relationship, joint establishment of a Hong Kong company, joint use of contact telephone numbers, joint operation of online stores, and joint publication of promotional content. The contact information, entity names, sources of goods, and promotional content appearing in the relevant online stores, websites, short-video accounts, social media pages, and product packaging overlapped with one another, which was sufficient to show that the accused parties were not using the relevant signs independently and incidentally, but were jointly manufacturing, selling, and promoting the accused goods under unified operational arrangements.
The court did not adhere rigidly to formal differences among the registered operators of the various platform stores, the nominal holders of accounts, or the forms of business operators. Instead, it conducted a substantive examination from the perspectives of operational control, attribution of interests, promotional content, source of goods, contact information, and prior statements made in administrative litigation, and then found that there was both a meeting of minds and a behavioral connection among the accused parties in jointly committing the infringement. This adjudicative method helps address the responsibility-avoidance phenomena commonly seen in online operations, such as the dispersion of business entities, fragmentation of accounts, and cross-over between domestic and overseas entities.
In e-commerce and social-media marketing scenarios, infringers often disperse operational traces through multiple online stores, multiple accounts, multiple individually owned businesses, or overseas companies, in an attempt to reduce the liability risk of any single entity. If a court were to rely only on industrial and commercial registration or platform authentication information, actual controllers could easily evade liability. By reconstructing the true operational relationship through the chain of evidence, this case reflected a penetrating and substantive approach to the determination of liability in intellectual property adjudication.
(VIII) Determination of Liability for Damages As to the amount of damages, punitive damages were not applied in this case. Instead, the court comprehensively determined RMB 1 million within the framework of statutory damages and discretionary damages. The court considered such factors as the reputation of the trademarks at issue, the duration of the infringement, the types of accused acts, the scale of platform sales and promotion, the subjective fault of the accused parties, and the reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder in enforcing its rights. Although the accused parties argued that some transactions were order brushing or false transactions and that the actual sales scale was relatively small, they did not submit key evidence capable of proving the true scale of operations, such as complete transaction back-end records, financial books, or account statements.
In intellectual property infringement cases, evidence such as infringing profits, sales data, profit margins, and transaction flows is usually in the possession of the infringer or the relevant platform. Even if the right holder actively adduces evidence through notarized purchases, webpage evidence preservation, screenshots of public promotions, and preservation of platform pages, it remains difficult to fully reconstruct the scale of infringement. If an infringer, on the one hand, denies the scale of sales and, on the other hand, refuses to submit key materials under its control without bearing any adverse consequence, the sanctioning and deterrent functions of the damages system would be significantly weakened.
In this case, through the rules on obstruction of evidence and a comprehensive discretionary method, the court converted the advantage of control over evidence into a corresponding adverse evaluation, which helps improve the structural problems of “difficulty in proving damages and low compensation” in intellectual property litigation. In particular, where the accused acts continued for a long period of time, the platform distribution was broad, the promotional channels were complex, and the subjective fault of the infringers was relatively obvious, even if the right holder could not precisely prove the amount of infringing profits, the court could still make a relatively sufficient assessment of damages on the basis of the existing evidence, the circumstances of infringement, and rules of experience.
Conclusion The core value of Guangdong Higher People’s Court Judgment (2024) Yue Min Zhong No. 3719 lies in its response, through a relatively refined temporal benchmark and method of balancing interests, to multiple key issues in the cross-class protection of well-known trademarks: well-known status should be dynamically examined around the specific timing of infringement; the defense based on use of a registered trademark must not conceal malicious free-riding; differences in goods classes do not automatically preclude protection for well-known trademarks; the use of commercial signs in domain names and multi-platform operations should be included in the overall evaluation; and obstruction of evidence may become an important consideration in determining liability for damages. This case has relatively high reference value for the future adjudication of cases involving conflicts of registered trademark rights, cross-class protection, multi-party infringement on online platforms, and proof of damages.