ChinaIPCase

Beijing Internet Court: AI Face-Swapped Short Drama Infringed a Well-Known Actor’s Portrait Right (Judgment of 2026)

Beijing Internet Court: AI Face-Swapped Short Drama Infringed a Well-Known Actor’s Portrait Right (Judgment of 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments This case addresses a new type of personality-rights dispute arising from the use of AI face-swapping technology in short-form video content. The Beijing Internet Court focused first on identifiability. The court held that an AI-generated or AI-modified image does not need to be identical to a person’s actual appearance. If the general public or a relevant group can […]

Beijing Internet Court: AI Face-Swapped Short Drama Infringed a Well-Known Actor’s Portrait Right (Judgment of 2026) More »

Changsha Court: A Structured Approach to Assessing the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Content in China (Judgment of August 5, 2026)

Changsha Court: A Structured Approach to Assessing the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Content in China (Judgment of August 5, 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments This case provides a more structured approach to assessing the copyrightability of AI-generated content in China. The court divided the creation process into three stages: pre-generation conception, generation control, and post-generation editing. It then developed a three-part test for assessing originality at the generation-control stage. Compared with the earlier Zhangjiagang Court decision, this case takes the analysis a

Changsha Court: A Structured Approach to Assessing the Copyrightability of AI-Generated Content in China (Judgment of August 5, 2026) More »

Hangzhou Intermediate Court: Trademark Ownership Does Not Determine Ownership of Product Packaging and Decoration (Judgment of July 21, 2026)

Hangzhou Intermediate Court: Trademark Ownership Does Not Determine Ownership of Product Packaging and Decoration (Judgment of July 21, 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments This case concerns an unfair competition dispute over the ownership of product packaging and decoration following the breakdown of a long-term business cooperation. A particularly noteworthy aspect of the case is that one of the defendants owned the relevant trademark in China. Nevertheless, the court held that the rights and interests in the overall product packaging and decoration

Hangzhou Intermediate Court: Trademark Ownership Does Not Determine Ownership of Product Packaging and Decoration (Judgment of July 21, 2026) More »

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026)

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026)By •

The Guangzhou Internet Court held that AI detection reports may be admitted as evidence. However, because the underlying detection standards, algorithms, and methodologies remain largely undisclosed, such reports have only limited probative value and cannot, by themselves, establish that an image was AI-generated. Instead, AI detection reports must be corroborated by other evidence before a court may conclude that a disputed image is highly likely to have been generated by AI.

Guangzhou Internet Court: AI Detection Reports Alone Cannot Establish That an Illustration Was AI-Generated (Judgment of 2026) More »

Suzhou Court Awards Louis Vuitton RMB 10.3 Million Against Molly Tea: The Law Was Straightforward, but the Public Reaction Was Not (Judgment of 2026)

Suzhou Court Awards Louis Vuitton RMB 10.3 Million Against Molly Tea: The Law Was Straightforward, but the Public Reaction Was Not (Judgment of 2026)By •

From a legal perspective, I do not find the court’s finding of trademark infringement particularly surprising. First, Louis Vuitton’s four-petal flower device has been used for decades as one of the signature elements of its Monogram collection and is protected by multiple registered trademarks in China. As a well-known trademark element with strong distinctiveness, it is entitled to broad protection under the Chinese Trademark Law.

Suzhou Court Awards Louis Vuitton RMB 10.3 Million Against Molly Tea: The Law Was Straightforward, but the Public Reaction Was Not (Judgment of 2026) More »

Jiangsu High Court: Brand Recognition Does Not Automatically Establish Protection for Product Decorations (Judgment of May 27, 2026)

Jiangsu High Court: Brand Recognition Does Not Automatically Establish Protection for Product Decorations (Judgment of May 27, 2026)By •

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.

Jiangsu High Court: Brand Recognition Does Not Automatically Establish Protection for Product Decorations (Judgment of May 27, 2026) More »

Henan High Court: How Criminal Enforcement Helped Sanofi Obtain RMB 1.8 Million in Trademark Damages (2025)

Henan High Court: How Criminal Enforcement Helped Sanofi Obtain RMB 1.8 Million in Trademark Damages (2025)By •

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.

Henan High Court: How Criminal Enforcement Helped Sanofi Obtain RMB 1.8 Million in Trademark Damages (2025) More »

Scroll to Top