Trademark

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 »

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part II)

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part II)By •

In Part I, we discussed five cases involving trademark distinctiveness, semiconductor patents, punitive damages, trade secret protection, and malicious employee poaching. This article highlights five additional cases concerning data scraping, anti-counterfeiting enforcement, online commercial defamation, platform liability, and bad-faith trademark filings.

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part II) More »

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part I)

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part I)By •

On April 20, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China released its 2025 Typical Intellectual Property Cases. The selected cases cover a broad range of issues, including trademark law, patent litigation, trade secret protection, unfair competition, data rights, platform liability, and anti-counterfeiting enforcement. This article highlights ten practical takeaways that may be relevant to brand owners, technology companies, platform operators, and IP practitioners following developments in Chinese intellectual property law.

10 Practical Takeaways from the SPC’s 2025 Typical IP Cases (Part I) More »

China IP & AI Quarterly Update — Q1 2026: Key Trends and Practical Considerations

China IP & AI Quarterly Update — Q1 2026: Key Trends and Practical ConsiderationsBy •

Executive Takeaways: China continues strengthening scrutiny over trademark filings, misleading branding practices, and trademark enforcement; Businesses operating in AI, software, robotics, SaaS, and digital services sectors should reassess trademark coverage under the updated Nice Classification system.

China IP & AI Quarterly Update — Q1 2026: Key Trends and Practical Considerations More »

Supreme People’s Court: Industry Perception Prevails in Determining Identical Goods — “Maple Leaf” Case Retrial Reversal (Judgment of January 29, 2026)

Supreme People’s Court: Industry Perception Prevails in Determining Identical Goods — “Maple Leaf” Case Retrial Reversal (Judgment of January 29, 2026)By •

This judgment sends several important signals: While the Classification remains a key reference, it is not determinative, especially where non-standard product names are involved; Courts will increasingly rely on real-world industry understanding to define the scope of goods.

Supreme People’s Court: Industry Perception Prevails in Determining Identical Goods — “Maple Leaf” Case Retrial Reversal (Judgment of January 29, 2026) More »

Shanghai Pudong Court Issues First Judgment Defining Liability Boundaries for User-Induced AI Hallucinations (Judgment issued on October 31, 2025)

Shanghai Pudong Court Issues First Judgment Defining Liability Boundaries for User-Induced AI Hallucinations (Judgment issued on October 31, 2025)By •

Editor’s Note: This case is notable because it shows how courts are beginning to deal with AI “hallucinations” in real commercial settings. Instead of looking only at what the AI said, the Shanghai Pudong Court paid close attention to how the conversation happened, what the user repeatedly asked, and what safeguards the platform had in place. The decision makes clear that when misleading AI outputs are driven by strategic user prompting, and the model provider has acted reasonably, courts may be reluctant to impose liability—offering practical guidance for AI platforms, brand owners, and their counsel.

Shanghai Pudong Court Issues First Judgment Defining Liability Boundaries for User-Induced AI Hallucinations (Judgment issued on October 31, 2025) More »

Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case over the mark “Haipawang” (Fujian High People’s Court, 2024)

Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case over the mark “Haipawang” (Fujian High People’s Court, 2024)By •

Issue involved: Where a company owns a prior registered trademark in the class covering the allegedly infringing goods—but that mark is unused or defensive—can the company instead rely on a different trademark registered in another class to seek recognition as a well-known mark and obtain cross-class protection? Comments/Strategies: 1. Focusing the Claim on Class 29 Rather than Class 30: After

Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case over the mark “Haipawang” (Fujian High People’s Court, 2024) More »

Scroll to Top