Mengchun’s Comments
I fully understand the practical difficulty faced by brand owners. In many cases, a company may have dozens or even hundreds of product models, making it challenging to collect separate fame evidence for each one.
As a result, rights holders often argue that the reputation of a well-known brand extends to product models sharing similar designs. However, this case suggests that Chinese courts may not always accept that approach.
The court emphasized that brand recognition does not automatically translate into recognition of a product decoration. Even where a brand enjoys substantial market recognition, rights holders should be prepared to prove that the specific product decoration at issue has itself acquired market influence and source-identifying significance. Evidence relating solely to the fame of the brand may not be sufficient.
I. Key Issue
When can the shape or configuration of a product qualify as a protectable product decoration under Article 6 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law?
II. Court’s Interpretation
The Jiangsu High People’s Court reaffirmed that a product shape or configuration may qualify as a protectable product decoration only if:
- The configuration has achieved a certain level of market influence;
- Consumers rely on the configuration to identify the source of the goods;
- The configuration is not dictated by the nature of the product, required to achieve a technical effect, or gives substantial value to the product itself; and
- Use by others is likely to cause confusion regarding the source of the goods.
The court further emphasized that trademark recognition and recognition of a product decoration are separate issues requiring separate proof.
Accordingly, where a party seeks protection for a product decoration under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it must prove that the claimed decoration itself had acquired market influence and source-identifying significance at the time of the alleged infringement.
III. Case Background
The plaintiff, a wholly owned Chinese subsidiary of CROCS, brought an unfair competition action against several affiliated companies operating the well-known Chinese fashion brand Hotwind.
The plaintiff claimed that five of its clog-style shoe models shared a distinctive combination of design elements, namely:
- A wide rounded toe;
- Uniformly distributed circular ventilation holes; and
- A movable heel strap attached through circular buttons.
According to the plaintiff, these three features collectively constituted a distinctive product decoration that had acquired recognition through extensive use and promotion.
The plaintiff alleged that Hotwind marketed multiple clog-style shoes incorporating highly similar design features and sought injunctive relief together with RMB 15 million in damages.
IV. Court’s Holding
1. First Instance Court Recognized the Claimed Product Decoration
The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court found in favor of CROCS.
The court held that CROCS had conducted extensive promotion of its clog-style footwear in China and that the claimed combination of design elements had acquired source-identifying significance through long-term use.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the claimed configuration constituted a product decoration with certain influence under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The defendants were ordered to cease the infringing conduct and pay RMB 2.5 million in damages.
2. Jiangsu High Court Reversed
On appeal, the Jiangsu High People’s Court reached a different conclusion.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that consumers had formed a stable association between the claimed product decoration and the source of the goods.
In particular, the court noted that:
- The advertising evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate extensive promotion of the specific product decoration claimed in the case;
- The sales evidence did not adequately show sales of products bearing the claimed decoration;
- Certain claimed design features served technical functions;
- Most prior enforcement efforts concerned trademark protection rather than protection of product decorations.
Most importantly, the court emphasized that the fame of the CROCS trademark could not automatically be equated with the fame of the claimed product decoration.
Although CROCS had established substantial brand recognition in China, the evidence was insufficient to prove that consumers had come to regard the specific claimed decoration as an indicator of source.
The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the claimed product decoration had acquired sufficient market influence and source-identifying significance to qualify for protection under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
V. Judgment
The Jiangsu High People’s Court reversed the first-instance judgment.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the claimed shoe configurations constituted product decorations with certain influence under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s unfair competition claim based on product decoration protection was rejected.
Court:
Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court (First Instance)
Jiangsu High People’s Court (Second Instance)
Final Decision Date:
May 27, 2026
Case No.:
First Instance:
（2022）苏05民初1103号
(2022) Su 05 Min Chu No. 1103
Second Instance:
（2024）苏民终665号
(2024) Su Min Zhong No. 665
