Mengchun’s Comments
This case is not really about trademark infringement.
It is about evidence.
The defendants’ use of “SANOFI” and “赛诺菲” was relatively straightforward. The more difficult question was how to prove the scale of infringement.
The answer came from the criminal investigation.
Working closely with the authorities in two cities, we were able to obtain sales records showing more than RMB 3 million in sales. The defendants argued that not all of those sales related to the accused products, but failed to provide evidence supporting that position. The court therefore accepted the sales figures and relied on them when calculating damages.
Without those records, this case would likely have resulted in a much lower damages award.
For brand owners, the lesson is simple: criminal enforcement is not only a tool for stopping infringement. In appropriate cases, it may be the most effective way to obtain the sales evidence necessary to support meaningful damages claims in subsequent civil litigation.
In 2025, the Henan High People’s Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The case was subsequently selected as one of Henan Province’s Seven Typical Intellectual Property Protection Cases of 2025.
I. Key Issue
How can evidence obtained during a criminal investigation influence damages calculations in subsequent trademark litigation?
II. Court’s Interpretation
The court’s damages analysis is particularly noteworthy.
Sanofi submitted evidence showing that sales of the accused products exceeded RMB 3.1 million. The defendants argued that not all of those sales related to the accused products. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting that assertion.
The court therefore accepted the RMB 3.1 million sales figure and used it as the basis for assessing the defendants’ profits.
In determining the final damages award, the court further considered the reputation of the SANOFI marks, the scope and duration of the infringement, and the defendants’ bad faith.
The court also supported Sanofi’s notarization and investigation expenses. Although Sanofi claimed attorneys’ fees, it did not submit payment records. The court nevertheless awarded a reasonable amount after considering the complexity of the case and the work performed by counsel.
On that basis, the court awarded RMB 1.6 million for trademark infringement, including reasonable enforcement expenses, and RMB 200,000 for unfair competition.
III. Case Background
Sanofi is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies and owns numerous trademark registrations for both “SANOFI” and “赛诺菲” in China, including registrations covering pharmaceuticals, veterinary medicines, and veterinary preparations.
Sanofi discovered that veterinary products and feed additives were being marketed using signs such as “赛诺菲” and “SAONUOFEI”. The investigation further revealed that one defendant was operating under the company name “Zhengzhou Sanofi Technology Co., Ltd.”
Unlike many trademark cases where evidence is limited to product samples and packaging, this dispute later became the subject of criminal enforcement action.
In September 2023, public security authorities conducted enforcement actions against the defendants. Authorities seized infringing products, packaging materials, and electronic sales records.
Most importantly, sales records recovered from employees’ mobile devices showed sales exceeding RMB 3 million.
Sanofi subsequently filed civil claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
IV. Court’s Holding
1. Use of “赛诺菲” and “SAONUOFEI” Constituted Trademark Infringement
The court held that the defendants’ use of “赛诺菲” and “SAONUOFEI” on veterinary products infringed Sanofi’s registered trademark rights.
2. Use of “赛诺菲” as a Company Name Constituted Unfair Competition
The court found that the defendant’s use of “赛诺菲” within its company name was likely to cause the public to believe that some commercial relationship existed between the parties and therefore constituted unfair competition.
3. No Need for Well-Known Trademark Recognition
The court declined to recognize the SANOFI marks as well-known trademarks because the dispute could be fully resolved through Sanofi’s existing trademark registrations.
The judgment reflects the long-established principle that well-known trademark recognition should be granted only where necessary to resolve the dispute.
4. Criminally Obtained Evidence Supported a Significant Damages Award
The most significant aspect of the judgment concerned damages.
The court accepted Sanofi’s evidence showing sales exceeding RMB 3.1 million. Although the defendants argued that not all of those sales related to the accused products, they failed to provide evidence supporting that assertion and therefore bore the adverse consequences of failing to meet their burden of proof.
The court consequently accepted the RMB 3.1 million sales figure and used it as the basis for assessing the defendants’ profits.
In determining the final damages award, the court further considered the reputation of the SANOFI marks, the scope and duration of the infringement, and the defendants’ bad faith.
The court ultimately awarded RMB 1.6 million for trademark infringement, including reasonable enforcement expenses, and RMB 200,000 for unfair competition, resulting in a total damages award of RMB 1.8 million.
V. Judgment
The Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court ordered the defendants to cease the infringing activities.
The court awarded:
- RMB 1.6 million for trademark infringement, including reasonable enforcement expenses;
- RMB 200,000 for unfair competition.
The court also ordered the defendants to publish statements to eliminate the adverse effects of the infringement.
In 2025, the Henan High People’s Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
The case was subsequently selected as one of Henan Province’s Seven Typical Intellectual Property Protection Cases of 2025.
In total, the judgment awarded RMB 1.8 million in damages and related relief to Sanofi.
Court:
Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court (First Instance)
Henan High People’s Court (Second Instance)
Final Decision Date:
2025
Case No.:
First Instance:
(2023) 豫01知民初1876号
(2023) Yu 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 1876
Second Instance:
(2025) 豫知民终301号
(2025) Yu Zhi Min Zhong No. 301
