The SPC Releases Data on Judicial Work Undertaken from January to September 2025

Date: 22 October 2025

From January to September 2025, national courts accepted 32.257 million judicial trial and enforcement cases of all types (including 1.179 million criminal cases, 21.174 million civil and commercial cases, 574,000 administrative cases, and 8.545 million enforcement cases), representing a decrease of 9.17% compared with the same period of the previous year (the numbers include cases successfully mediated. In terms of intellectual property, 454,000 first-instance civil cases were accepted, a year-on-year increase of 33.78%. The SPC issued its Reply on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Patent Right Evaluation Reports; released eight typical cases of anti-unfair competition and five typical anti-monopoly cases; clarified judicial rules and generally created a sound legal environment.

Source：SPC

https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/479261.html

最高法公布2025年1至9月司法审判工作主要数据

日期：2025-10-22

2025年1至9月，全国法院受理各类审判执行案件3225.7万件（其中刑事案件117.9万件，民商事案件2117.4万件，行政案件57.4万件，执行案件854.5万件），与上年同期包括诉前调解成功在内的各类案件相比下降9.17%。

知识产权方面，受理知识产权民事一审案件45.4万件，同比上升33.78%。最高人民法院作出《关于审理涉专利权评价报告案件适用法律问题的批复》，发布反不正当竞争典型案例8件、反垄断典型案例5件，明确裁判规则，营造良好的法治环境。

资料来源：最高法

新闻链接：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/479261.html

Beijing Concludes First Criminal Case Nationwide Involving Counterfeiting of Service Trademark in Theme Park Sector

Date: 9 October 2025

Universal City Studios LLC is the owner of trademarks including ‘Universal Studios’, ‘UNIVERSAL RESORT’ and ‘’ in Class 41 resgistered in relation to tour guide services. The Defendants operated a website ‘Beijing Universal Studios VIP Reservation Center through which it sold Beijing Universal Studios VIP packages including tour guide services. It made prominent use of the ‘’ trademark; and used the phrases ‘Beijing Universal Resort’ and ‘Universal Studios Resort’ on its webpage.

At first instance, the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, in accordance with the Interpretation of the SPC and the SPP on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling of Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, found that the marks used on the Defendants' webpage were identical to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The Defendants, however, argued that it was unavoidable to use scenic spot names in carrying out its tour guide service: its use of the phrase ‘Universal Studios’ did not, therefore, constitute trademark use. The focus of the dispute was ‘whether the Defendants’ use constituted trademark use’.

The Court held that the Defendants' website displayed the enterprise name at the bottom of the page in a non-prominent position and did not explicitly state that it was not authorized by Universal Studios, which was sufficient to cause confusion. Although the Defendants were not using the Universal Studios trademark in relation to the actual provision of services, they were using it in relation to pre-sales and promotional activity in relation to those services and that was sufficient.

The Defendants had profited by collecting service fees in excess of RMB 500,000, (approx. US$ 70,000.00). The Court considered their activities were particularly serious and that they constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks.  

The Defendants appealed unsuccessfully to the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court. All were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment and fines, the maximum penalty imposed being a four-year prison sentence and a fine of RMB 1.6 million (approx. US$ 225,000)

Source: China Intellectual Property Lawyer Network

https://www.ciplawyer.cn/articles/157689.html 

北京审结全国首例主题乐园领域假冒服务商标刑事案件

日期：2025-10-09

环球公司在第 41 类 “导游服务” 上注册有 “环球影城”“UNIVERSAL RESORT” 及“”等商标。被告人经营 “北京环球影城贵宾预定中心” 网站，销售含导览服务的 “北京环球影城贵宾套餐”，并在网页显著位置使用、 “北京环球度假区”“环球影城度假区” 文字等。 

一审中，北京通州区人民法院依据《最高人民法院 最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》，认定被告人网页使用的标识与原告注册商标相同、提供的导览服务与环球公司核准注册的导游服务亦属同一服务。被告人主张其开展旅游业务无法避免使用景区名称，被告使用“环球影城” 字样不是商标性使用，核心争议焦点为“是否构成商标性使用”。

法院认为，被告网站并未明示非官方授权性质，仅在页面最下方、非显著位置显示企业名称，足以造成混淆；同时，导览服务从购买到体验是一个连贯过程，虽然在提供服务过程中并未使用环球公司注册商标，但在前期宣传销售中的使用亦构成侵权。被告人以收取服务费的方式盈利，所收取的服务费金额超过人民币五十万元，属于情节特别严重，构成假冒注册商标罪。被告人提起上诉后，北京三中院作出裁定，同意一审判决结论。六人均被判处有期徒刑并处罚金，最高刑罚为有期徒刑四年，并处罚金160万人民币。 

资料来源：中国知识产权律师网  

新闻链接：https://www.ciplawyer.cn/articles/157689.html

The SPC Releases ‘Typical Cases’ on the 10th Anniversary of the Implementation of the Amended Administrative Procedure Law

Date: 17 October 2025

The amended Administrative Procedure Law came into force on 1 May 2015, and the second amendment came into force on 1 July 2017. From May 2015 to June 2025, people's courts at all levels concluded a total of 2.831 million first-instance administrative cases and 2.085 million compulsory execution applications made by administrative organs pursuant to Art. 97 of the Administrative Procedure Law. On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the amended Administrative Procedure Law, the SPC selected and released seven typical cases, among which Case 3 involves the rules for judging trademark similarity and the impact of prior trademarks on the approval and registration of subsequent trademarks.

In Case 3, the petitioner for invalidation, Guangdong Haotaitai Technology Group Co., Ltd. ( ‘Haotaitai Company’), was the owner of Cited Trademarks 1, 2 and 3, among which Cited Trademark 1 had achieved well-known status before the Respondent, Foshan Kaidaneng Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. ('Kaidaneng Company’), applied to register the disputed mark: No. 9501078 ‘Haotaitai Haotaitai and Graphic’ in relation to goods such as sideboards in Class 20. Kaidaneng Company held a prior trademark registration: No. 3563073 ‘Haotaitai’, registered in relation to goods in Class 11.

The TRAB determined that the disputed trademark was a reasonable extension of Kaidaneng Company's prior trademark rights, and that it did not constitute a similar trademark to Cited Trademark 3 when used on the same or similar goods. It, therefore, refused Haotaitai Company’s invalidation petition.  Haotaitai Company did not accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit. Both the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (first instance) and the High People's Court of Beijing Municipality (second instance) rejected Haotaitai Company's claim.

Upon retrial, the SPC held that the disputed trademark and Cited Trademark 3 were similar marks: their use on the same or similar goods was likely to cause confusion and misidentification among consumers. Although Kaidaneng Company's prior 'Haotaitai’ trademark (3563073) had achieved well-known mark status and was widely recognized by the public in relation to kitchen range hoods and gas stoves, its registration is not necessarily sufficient reason for approval and registration of the disputed trademark. Whether the disputed trademark can be registered must be judged in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law.

Before Kaidaneng Company applied to register the disputed mark, it had been ordered by the industrial and commercial administrative authority to cease use of the name ‘Guangdong Haotaitai Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.’ on the grounds that it infringed Haotaitai Company's well-known Haotaitai trademark. It had also, in another effective judgment, been held to have infringed Haotaitai Company’s Cited Trademark 1.    The disputed trademark constituted a reproduction and imitation of Haotaitai Company's well-known trademark and was likely to mislead the public. This was sufficient basis for refusal of registration as stipulated in Article 13(3) of the Trademark Law. The SPC revoked the first instance and second-instance judgments and the ruling of the TRAB and ordered CNIPA to make a new ruling.

Source: SPC

https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/478981.html

最高人民法院发布行政诉讼法修正施行十周年典型案例

日期：2025-10-17

2015年5月1日《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》修正施行，2017年7月1日该法第二次修正施行。2015年5月至2025年6月，各级人民法院共审结一审行政案件283.1万件，办结行政非诉执行案件208.5万件。值行政诉讼法修正施行十周年之际，最高人民法院选出七件典型案例予以发布，其中案例三涉及商标近似性判断规则及在先商标对在后商标核准注册的影响。 

在案例三中，无效申请人广东好太太科技集团股份有限公司（以下简称 “好太太公司”）系引证商标一二三的商标注册人，其中引证商标一在诉争商标申请前已达驰名程度。无效被申请人佛山市凯达能企业管理咨询有限公司（以下简称 “凯达能公司”）持有第 3563073 号 “Haotaitai” 在先商标，凯达能公司申请的诉争商标被核准使用在第 20 类餐具柜等商品上。

原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会认定，诉争商标是凯达能公司在先商标权利的合理延伸，诉争商标与引证商标三未构成使用在同一种或类似商品上的近似商标，裁定维持诉争商标。好太太公司不服并提起行政诉讼，北京知识产权法院 一审、北京市高级人民法院二审均驳回了好太太公司的诉讼请求。 

最高法再审认为，诉争商标与引证商标三为近似标识，二者核定使用在相同或类似商品上，易造成消费者的混淆误认，构成近似商标。虽然凯某公司第3563073号在先商标在厨房用抽油烟机、燃气灶商品上业已达到广为公众所熟知的驰名程度，但第3563073号在先商标的核准注册并非是本案诉争商标应予核准注册的当然理由，诉争商标能否注册应当依据商标法的相关规定进行判断。此外凯达能公司曾使用“广东好太太电器有限公司”的名称，而被工商行政机关认定损害好太太公司驰名商标权益而被责令更名，以及在诉争商标申请注册前就有生效裁判认定凯达能公司在经营活动中存在侵害好太太公司引证商标一商标权行为，因此诉争商标的申请注册构成对好太太公司驰名商标的复制、摹仿，误导公众，构成商标法第十三条第三款规定的不予注册的情形，最高法撤销了一、二审判决和国知局裁定，并判令国知局重新作出裁定。 

资料来源：最高法

新闻链接：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/478981.html

French Branded Rémy Martin Cognac Bottles - Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court Concludes Its First Foreign-Related 3D Trademark Infringement Case

Date: 17 October 2025

No. G912806 3D Trademark (left) and No. G1317531 3D Trademark (right)

The Plaintiff is the proprietor of registered 3D trademarks No. G912806 3D and No. G1317531 3D used in relation to the French Rémy Martin branded bottled cognac products. It was discovered that the Defendants, a Shandong-based wine company and an individual, Zhang, were producing and selling brandy products in similar bottles (‘the alleged infringing products’) on multiple online platforms. Considering its trademarks were being infringed, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court, seeking an injunction and compensation of RMB 5 million (approx. US$700,000.00). At the same time, it applied for a property preservation order, requesting the freezing of bank deposits totaling RMB 5 million in the names of the Shandong-based wine company and Zhang, or the seizure and detention of various properties.

After receiving the application for property preservation, the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court imposed preservation measures, freezing more than RMB 330,000 (approx. US$46,579).  It then made a series of directions, including directions for pretrial evidence exchange and a public court hearing. After the trial, but before judgment, the Defendants expressed their willingness to mediate.  The judge encouraged both parties to assess the potential risks of litigation and execution. After multiple rounds of consultations, the parties finally reached a mediation agreement. Part of the compensation agreed in the mediation agreement was directly deducted and transferred by the Court from the frozen bank account to the designated collection account of the Plaintiff, and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid within a specified time limit.

Source: Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/7d17oR3bOa7bbsjCxDw-kg

海南自由贸易港知识产权法院调解结案该院首例涉外立体商标侵权案件，涉及法国人头马品牌（Rémy Martin）瓶装干邑白兰地产品

日期：2025-10-17

图为涉案被侵权的第G912806号（左）以及第G1317531号（右）立体商标

本案原告享有与法国人头马品牌（REMY MARTIN）干邑白兰地产品相关的第G912806号以及第G1317531号立体商标的注册商标专用权。2023年起，原告调查发现被告山东某酒业公司、张某大量生产并在多个网络平台销售瓶型外观与上述立体商标近似的白兰地（以下简称被诉侵权产品）。原告认为上述行为构成商标侵权，故诉至海南自贸港知产法院，要求停止侵权并赔偿人民币500万元。同时，原告申请财产保全，请求冻结山东某酒业公司、张某名下的银行存款共计500万元或查封、扣押其他相应财产。

海南自贸港知产法院收到财产保全申请后，依法采取保全措施，实际冻结33万余元，随后完成了庭前证据交换、公开开庭审理等一系列工作。庭审后，被告向法官表达了调解意愿，法官引导双方当事人评估诉讼和执行可能发生的风险。经多轮磋商，最终双方当事人达成调解，调解协议约定的部分赔偿款项由法院从已冻结的银行账户直接扣划至原告指定的收款账户，剩余款项则约定了付清期限。

资料来源：海南自由贸易港知识产权法院

新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/7d17oR3bOa7bbsjCxDw-kg