ChinaIPLaw

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 »

Shanghai IP Court Further Clarifies the Boundaries of AI Platforms’ Duty of Care for Copyright Infringement (Judgment of April 29, 2026)

Shanghai IP Court Further Clarifies the Boundaries of AI Platforms’ Duty of Care for Copyright Infringement (Judgment of April 29, 2026)By •

Mengchun’s Comments In the first Chinese case involving copyright infringement conducted through a generative AI platform, the Hangzhou Internet Court held that the AI platform provider could be held liable for assisting infringement. The court emphasized that the platform’s fault should be assessed by considering factors including the nature of the service, the popularity of the work, the obviousness of

Shanghai IP Court Further Clarifies the Boundaries of AI Platforms’ Duty of Care for Copyright Infringement (Judgment of April 29, 2026) More »

English Translation of the Judgment: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea — Trademark Infringement Dispute

English Translation of the Judgment: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea — Trademark Infringement DisputeBy •

Louis Vuitton Malletier (hereinafter referred to as “Louis Vuitton”), a globally renowned luxury goods manufacturer headquartered in France, designed and introduced in 1896 a figurative mark consisting of the “LV” device, four-leaf clover motifs and other elements. Louis Vuitton has registered and owns multiple trademarks in China, including Trademark Registration Nos. 61812517A, 68717216A, 1106302, 1111910, 1112498, 52161177, and 68725763A, among others. The designated goods and services of these trademarks cover Classes 3, 4, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 43.

English Translation of the Judgment: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Molly Tea — Trademark Infringement Dispute 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 »

Scroll to Top