China’s Supreme Copurt Reaffirms Protection Against Trade Names Incorporating Well-Known Trademarks
Published 1 September 2026
Yu Du
On 17 August 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) issued its retrial judgment in a dispute involving the well-known LUKFOOK trademark (meaning “six blessings”) and a later-registered corporate trade name incorporating a confusingly similar element. In Civil Judgment (2026) No. 51 - the full decision is available through China Judgments Online – [ https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/ ] the SPC reversed the appellate judgment, holding that the defendant’s registration and use of the disputed trade name constituted unfair competition in addition to trademark infringement, and reinstated the first-instance judgment.
Case History
The LUKFOOK trademark was registered on 14 February 1997 for jewellery-related goods. Following long-term and extensive use and promotion, it acquired substantial reputation in the jewellery sector and was recognized as a well-known trademark on 31 December 2012.
The defendant company, also operating in the jewellery business, was established on 28 December 2016. Its corporate name contained a trade name incorporating a sign similar to LUKFOOK. The defendant and its franchisees also used the disputed sign in connection with jewellery products, websites, WeChat accounts and franchise agreements.
A related trademark incorporating the disputed sign was challenged in invalidation proceedings beginning on 18 January 2018. On 8 December 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the disputed trademark was similar to the prior LUKFOOK marks. The Beijing High People’s Court upheld that ruling on 21 December 2022. Following reconsideration, the China National Intellectual Property Administration declared the disputed trademark invalid in 2023.The trademark licensee subsequently brought civil proceedings for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The First-Instance and Appellate Judgments
The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court found both trademark infringement and unfair competition.
It held that use of the disputed sign on store signage, decoration and product packaging constituted trademark use and was likely to cause confusion with the earlier LUKFOOK trademarks. Separately, it found that adopting the disputed sign as the defendant’s corporate trade name was also likely to lead consumers to believe that the defendant or its products were connected with the owner of the LUKFOOK brand. The court therefore ordered the defendant to cease the infringing conduct, cease using the disputed trade name, and pay RMB 100,000 in damages and reasonable enforcement costs.
On appeal, the Hunan High People’s Court agreed that trademark infringement had occurred but reversed the finding of unfair competition.
The appellate court emphasized that the defendant generally used its full registered corporate name rather than separately highlighting the disputed trade name. It considered the parties’ full corporate names distinguishable, noted that they were registered in different administrative regions, and concluded that standardized use of the defendant’s corporate name was unlikely to cause confusion. It therefore allowed the defendant to retain the trade name and reduced damages from RMB 100,000 to RMB 50,000.
The trademark licensee applied to the SPC for retrial. On 28 January 2026, the SPC ordered the case to be retried.
The SPC Retrial Judgment
The SPC reversed the appellate judgment.
At the retrial stage, the parties no longer disputed the finding of trademark infringement. The central issue was whether the defendant’s registration and use of the disputed corporate trade name also constituted unfair competition.
The SPC relied on Article 6(4) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law amended in 2019 and Article 13(2) of the relevant judicial interpretation, under which the use of another party’s registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark as a corporate trade name may constitute an actionable act of confusion where it misleads the public into believing that the parties’ goods or businesses are connected.
The Court stressed several factors. The LUKFOOK trademark had been registered as early as 1997 and had acquired a high degree of reputation through long-term and extensive use. The defendant operated in the same jewellery industry and should therefore have been aware of the earlier mark. Nevertheless, it registered a trade name incorporating a similar sign containing the LUKFOOK element and subsequently used that name on its website, WeChat account and franchise agreements.
In the SPC’s view, these circumstances demonstrated an intention to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the LUKFOOK trademark and created a likelihood that the relevant public would believe that the defendant, or its products, had a particular connection with the LUKFOOK brand. The conduct therefore constituted unfair competition.
Importantly, the SPC rejected the appellate court’s conclusion that “standardized” or complete use of a registered corporate name was sufficient to avoid liability. Where the trade name itself improperly incorporates a sign conflicting with an earlier trademark and is capable of causing confusion, formally correct use of the full corporate name does not eliminate the underlying conflict.
The SPC accordingly set aside the Hunan High People’s Court judgment and reinstated the first-instance judgment, including the order requiring cessation of use of the disputed trade name and the RMB 100,000 damages award.
Legal Analysis
The judgment draws an important distinction between two forms of use arising from the same commercial arrangement.
Use of the disputed sign as a source identifier for jewellery goods may constitute trademark infringement and is governed principally by the Trademark Law. Use of the same or similar sign as a corporate trade name, however, raises a separate question concerning confusion as to business identity or affiliation and may independently fall within Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Accordingly, the existence of a trademark infringement claim does not necessarily exclude protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law where the challenged conduct also consists of the registration and use of a conflicting enterprise name. The two regimes address different manifestations of market confusion.
The decision also limits the significance of the “standardized use” defence. Registration of a corporate name does not create an absolute safe harbour. Courts may look beyond whether a company merely uses its officially registered full name and examine whether the selection of the trade name itself conflicts with an earlier right, the reputation of that earlier mark, the parties’ respective industries, the defendant’s likely knowledge of the prior mark, and the resulting likelihood of confusion.
Comment
The judgment strengthens the protection available to established brands where a later market entrant incorporates a well-known trademark or a confusingly similar sign into its corporate trade name. In particular, it makes clear that corporate-name registration and technically standardized use cannot, by themselves, neutralize an earlier trademark right where the choice of trade name carries an evident risk of confusion or suggests an intention to benefit from another brand’s goodwill.
For businesses conducting trademark clearance in China, the case is also a reminder that trademark searches alone are insufficient. Corporate names, trade names and other commercial identifiers should be reviewed together with registered and well-known trademarks before market entry. Conversely, established brand owners may consider trademark infringement and unfair competition as complementary causes of action where a conflicting sign is used both as a product identifier and as part of an enterprise name.
Case History
The LUKFOOK trademark was registered on 14 February 1997 for jewellery-related goods. Following long-term and extensive use and promotion, it acquired substantial reputation in the jewellery sector and was recognized as a well-known trademark on 31 December 2012.
The defendant company, also operating in the jewellery business, was established on 28 December 2016. Its corporate name contained a trade name incorporating a sign similar to LUKFOOK. The defendant and its franchisees also used the disputed sign in connection with jewellery products, websites, WeChat accounts and franchise agreements.
A related trademark incorporating the disputed sign was challenged in invalidation proceedings beginning on 18 January 2018. On 8 December 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the disputed trademark was similar to the prior LUKFOOK marks. The Beijing High People’s Court upheld that ruling on 21 December 2022. Following reconsideration, the China National Intellectual Property Administration declared the disputed trademark invalid in 2023.The trademark licensee subsequently brought civil proceedings for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The First-Instance and Appellate Judgments
The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court found both trademark infringement and unfair competition.
It held that use of the disputed sign on store signage, decoration and product packaging constituted trademark use and was likely to cause confusion with the earlier LUKFOOK trademarks. Separately, it found that adopting the disputed sign as the defendant’s corporate trade name was also likely to lead consumers to believe that the defendant or its products were connected with the owner of the LUKFOOK brand. The court therefore ordered the defendant to cease the infringing conduct, cease using the disputed trade name, and pay RMB 100,000 in damages and reasonable enforcement costs.
On appeal, the Hunan High People’s Court agreed that trademark infringement had occurred but reversed the finding of unfair competition.
The appellate court emphasized that the defendant generally used its full registered corporate name rather than separately highlighting the disputed trade name. It considered the parties’ full corporate names distinguishable, noted that they were registered in different administrative regions, and concluded that standardized use of the defendant’s corporate name was unlikely to cause confusion. It therefore allowed the defendant to retain the trade name and reduced damages from RMB 100,000 to RMB 50,000.
The trademark licensee applied to the SPC for retrial. On 28 January 2026, the SPC ordered the case to be retried.
The SPC Retrial Judgment
The SPC reversed the appellate judgment.
At the retrial stage, the parties no longer disputed the finding of trademark infringement. The central issue was whether the defendant’s registration and use of the disputed corporate trade name also constituted unfair competition.
The SPC relied on Article 6(4) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law amended in 2019 and Article 13(2) of the relevant judicial interpretation, under which the use of another party’s registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark as a corporate trade name may constitute an actionable act of confusion where it misleads the public into believing that the parties’ goods or businesses are connected.
The Court stressed several factors. The LUKFOOK trademark had been registered as early as 1997 and had acquired a high degree of reputation through long-term and extensive use. The defendant operated in the same jewellery industry and should therefore have been aware of the earlier mark. Nevertheless, it registered a trade name incorporating a similar sign containing the LUKFOOK element and subsequently used that name on its website, WeChat account and franchise agreements.
In the SPC’s view, these circumstances demonstrated an intention to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the LUKFOOK trademark and created a likelihood that the relevant public would believe that the defendant, or its products, had a particular connection with the LUKFOOK brand. The conduct therefore constituted unfair competition.
Importantly, the SPC rejected the appellate court’s conclusion that “standardized” or complete use of a registered corporate name was sufficient to avoid liability. Where the trade name itself improperly incorporates a sign conflicting with an earlier trademark and is capable of causing confusion, formally correct use of the full corporate name does not eliminate the underlying conflict.
The SPC accordingly set aside the Hunan High People’s Court judgment and reinstated the first-instance judgment, including the order requiring cessation of use of the disputed trade name and the RMB 100,000 damages award.
Legal Analysis
The judgment draws an important distinction between two forms of use arising from the same commercial arrangement.
Use of the disputed sign as a source identifier for jewellery goods may constitute trademark infringement and is governed principally by the Trademark Law. Use of the same or similar sign as a corporate trade name, however, raises a separate question concerning confusion as to business identity or affiliation and may independently fall within Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Accordingly, the existence of a trademark infringement claim does not necessarily exclude protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law where the challenged conduct also consists of the registration and use of a conflicting enterprise name. The two regimes address different manifestations of market confusion.
The decision also limits the significance of the “standardized use” defence. Registration of a corporate name does not create an absolute safe harbour. Courts may look beyond whether a company merely uses its officially registered full name and examine whether the selection of the trade name itself conflicts with an earlier right, the reputation of that earlier mark, the parties’ respective industries, the defendant’s likely knowledge of the prior mark, and the resulting likelihood of confusion.
Comment
The judgment strengthens the protection available to established brands where a later market entrant incorporates a well-known trademark or a confusingly similar sign into its corporate trade name. In particular, it makes clear that corporate-name registration and technically standardized use cannot, by themselves, neutralize an earlier trademark right where the choice of trade name carries an evident risk of confusion or suggests an intention to benefit from another brand’s goodwill.
For businesses conducting trademark clearance in China, the case is also a reminder that trademark searches alone are insufficient. Corporate names, trade names and other commercial identifiers should be reviewed together with registered and well-known trademarks before market entry. Conversely, established brand owners may consider trademark infringement and unfair competition as complementary causes of action where a conflicting sign is used both as a product identifier and as part of an enterprise name.