Case Represented by Attorneys Yan Fei and Wang Qi Selected as a 2025 Zhejiang Court Typical Intellectual Property Protection Case

On April 14, the Zhejiang High People's Court held a press conference, releasing the "2025 Zhejiang Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Analysis Report" and 10 typical intellectual property protection cases.

Among them, a case represented by attorneys Yan Fei and Wang Qi from Rayto Law Firm was successfully selected as a typical case in the 2025 Zhejiang Court Intellectual Property Protection, listed as Case No. 4, fully demonstrating the professional strength and practical expertise of Rayto attorneys in the IP field.

4. Hua × Technology Co., Ltd. v. Quzhou Da × E-commerce Co., Ltd., Zhang ×, et al. (Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute)

【Reason for Selection】

With the rapid development of the digital economy, livestream e-commerce has become one of the mainstream business models, greatly enriching product circulation channels and facilitating consumer shopping. However, at the same time, trademark infringement and unfair competition using livestream platform mechanisms have become increasingly prominent. This case is a typical example of combating trademark infringement and unfair competition under the traffic-diverting livestream e-commerce model. The court legally deemed the act of prominently using another party's well-known commercial marks during livestream sales to improperly divert traffic and cause consumer confusion as trademark infringement and unfair competition, and applied punitive damages to increase penalties against intentional and serious infringements. This judgment fully demonstrates the judicial orientation of strengthening the protection of well-known brands and effectively regulating unfair competition, promoting the healthy and orderly development of the online livestreaming industry.

【Key Adjudication Ruling】

Nominative use of a trademark must follow the principles of good faith, reasonableness, and necessity. When using another's trademark in the process of selling goods, a seller must limit such use to objectively indicating the source or purpose of the goods and must not exceed the necessary scope. Where a livestream operator, for the purpose of driving traffic and profit, comprehensively and prominently uses another's registered trademark in multiple scenarios to free-ride on the trademark owner's goodwill, even if there is a small amount of genuine product sales, such use far exceeds the reasonable scope necessary to indicate the source of the goods and does not constitute nominative fair use; thus, it shall bear liability for trademark infringement.

【Case Index】

First Instance: Zhejiang Quzhou Qujiang District People's Court (2024) Zhe 0803 Min Chu No. 1192
Second Instance: Zhejiang Quzhou Intermediate People's Court (2025) Zhe 08 Min Zhong No. 563

【Case Summary】

Hua × Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hua × Company") owns four registered trademarks, including "Hua ×," approved for use on goods such as mobile phones in Class 9. The "Hua ×" trademark was recognized by a final judgment as a well-known trademark on mobile phone goods, and the "Hua ×" trade name constitutes a "certainly influential" enterprise trade name. Quzhou Da × E-commerce Co., Ltd. ("Da × Company") and Zhang × (Da × Company's former sole shareholder and former legal representative), without obtaining permission from Hua × Company, used multiple Douyin accounts under their control to produce and publish a large number of short videos containing the involved trademarks and logos as the main traffic entry point for improper traffic diversion. They also decorated their livestream room to be highly similar to Hua × Company's offline physical store as a fixed background for livestream sales. During livestreams, they used the involved trademarks and logos through on-screen graphics (stickers), the host's attire, language and behavior, product placement, etc., to sell digital products of brands such as New ×, earning sales commissions. Hua × Company filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order Da × Company, Zhang ×, et al. to cease the trademark infringement and unfair competition, and to compensate for economic losses and reasonable legal expenses totaling 1.1 million yuan. During the first-instance trial, Da × Company reduced its registered capital from 1 million yuan to 10,000 yuan and changed its legal representative. Zhang × transferred 100% of his shares in the company to a third party.

【Adjudication Content】

The Qujiang District People's Court of Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province, held after trial: Da × Company and Zhang × jointly infringed upon Hua × Company's exclusive right to use its registered trademarks and constituted unfair competition. Based on the commissions earned during the infringement period, the court applied triple punitive damages and ruled on March 28, 2025: Da × Company and Zhang × shall compensate Hua × Company for economic losses and reasonable legal expenses totaling 1.1 million yuan.

Both Da × Company and Zhang × appealed the first-instance judgment to the Quzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province.

The Quzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province held after trial: This case is a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute involving a well-known anchor and company using short video works and a livestream room to comprehensively free-ride on the goodwill of a well-known trademark to attract followers and divert traffic, while livestreaming the sale of large quantities of low-priced goods similar in appearance to the right holder's genuine products. Although Da × Company and Zhang × actually sold a small number of genuine Hua × Company mobile phones during the livestream sales, they primarily sold other brands. Their use of Hua × Company's trademark far exceeded the scope of nominative fair use, was likely to cause consumer confusion, and constituted trademark infringement. Furthermore, Da × Company and Zhang ×'s acts of publishing short videos and using livestream stickers constituted the unauthorized use of another party's certainly influential enterprise name, product name, and other acts of confusion sufficient to cause misidentification, constituting unfair competition. The first-instance court's application of triple punitive damages based on the commission income during the infringement period, considering factors such as the influence of the involved trademarks, the nature and scale of the infringing acts, subjective intent, and the seriousness of the infringement, and its full support of the 1.1 million yuan claimed by Hua × Company for economic losses and reasonable legal expenses, was proper. The court ruled on June 6, 2025: Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed.