4·26 World Intellectual Property Day | Rayto Law Firm Announces Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases of 2025

Time witnesses the power of innovation, and professionalism creates classic cases. On the occasion of the 26th World Intellectual Property Day, Rayto Law Firm officially releases its "Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases of 2025," showcasing our professional dedication and key achievements in the intellectual property field over the past year.

Rayto attorneys continue to achieve breakthroughs in complex areas including patents, trademarks, copyrights, anti-unfair competition, and trade secrets, safeguarding clients' core intellectual assets and business outcomes with solid legal services. The ten selected cases are both a concentrated reflection of our team's professional capabilities and vivid illustrations of our joint efforts with innovators to defend intellectual property rights.

Rayto Law Firm
Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases of 2025

I. Trademark and Unfair Competition Dispute Case of a Sports Goods Company

Attorneys: Meng Tan, Guo Jing, Liu Jinfeng, Hu Fengfeng

Case Summary: This case involves a trademark infringement dispute where a sports goods company sued several Guangzhou-based trading and sporting goods companies and individuals.

Significance: After first and second instance trials, the court found four defendants liable for joint infringement with serious circumstances, applied double punitive damages, and fully supported the plaintiff's claim of 1 million yuan in compensation, demonstrating the law's severe punishment of malicious infringement and safeguarding trademark owners' legitimate rights and market order.

II. "Yaohai" Trademark and Trade Name Anti-Unfair Competition Case

Attorneys: Du Yuancheng, Jin Huikang, Wang Zeyang, Gu Xueqiao

Case Summary: "Yaohai" is a registered trademark for furniture goods owned by plaintiff Anhui Yaohai Furniture Company, which had long used it as its trade name. Through years of production, operation, and extensive promotion, "Yaohai" had established a stable association with the plaintiff and gained considerable market recognition. The defendant, a competitor in the same region and industry, deliberately sought to free-ride on the plaintiff's goodwill by moving its registered address to Yaohai District, changing its company name, and maliciously applying for similar trademarks, using "Yaohai" and "Yaohai Xinxin" as trade names.

Significance: This case突破了 the simplistic determination that formally "standard use" of an approved company name does not constitute infringement, deeply examining the不正当性 and实质性 effects of the infringer's conduct. It is valuable for combating conduct that packages improper intent in legally compliant forms, deepening the practical application of likelihood of confusion standards, and effectively protecting well-known brands.

III. Trade Secret Criminal Case of a Nanjing Medical Device Company

Attorneys: Jiang Haijun, Jin Long

Case Summary: Executives and key technical personnel of a medical device company transferred prototype products developed over many years to a newly established company, along with large amounts of technical and product data. After they resigned, they conducted new R&D based on the taken materials and equipment and attempted market promotion without actual sales. After the original company reported the case, the public security bureau arrested the suspects and seized prototypes and laptops containing original company data. After investigation and appraisal, the suspects were prosecuted for trade secret infringement and job-related embezzlement, leading to court judgments.

Significance: This case was selected as a typical case by Nanjing Procuratorate and Jiangsu Procuratorate for IP protection. It is the first criminal case in Nanjing where reasonable licensing fees were used to determine the loss amount in a trade secret case, setting a significant precedent.

IV. Livestream Traffic Diversion and Sales Case

Attorneys: Yan Fei, Wang Qi

Case Summary: This case involves a novel infringement model of "short video traffic diversion – scene creation – product sales" through livestream e-commerce. The infringers prominently used the right holder's trademark in multiple scenarios and formats, exploiting the goodwill for profit. Without authorization, they created a livestream room highly similar to the right holder's offline store as a fixed background, using on-screen graphics, host attire, language, behavior, and product placement to sell digital products from other brands and earn commissions.

Significance: This is a typical case combating trademark infringement and unfair competition under the traffic-diverting livestream model, establishing standards for identifying novel infringements such as "scenario-based confusion." The court applied punitive damages, significantly increasing the cost of infringement and effectively deterring the industry mentality that infringement carries low costs with high illegal profits. This case was selected as one of the Supreme People's Court's eight typical anti-unfair competition cases of 2025 and one of the Zhejiang Courts' ten typical IP protection cases of 2025.

V. Handheld Coating Model Appearance Design Patent Infringement Case

Attorneys: Wei Chaofeng, Wang Qi

Case Summary: A company's original design had an appearance patent, but a competitor copied the product and applied for a utility model patent (before the appearance design was公开). Facing this situation, the company adopted a two-step strategy: first, filing an invalidation against the competitor's utility model patent to eliminate counter-risk; second, initiating infringement litigation based on its own valid appearance design patent.

Significance: Considering the wide scope of infringement (covering over 40 stores on platforms like Taobao and Pinduoduo) and significant subjective malice, the court ordered the competitor to pay compensation. This case provides a replicable维权 paradigm for中小型企业 facing抄 from industry giants and highlights the key role of appearance design patents in innovation protection.

VI. Unfair Competition Case Involving Trade Name and Packaging of a Sports Goods Company

Attorneys: Xu Qian, Guo Jing, Liu Jinfeng

Case Summary: The defendant had previously been found liable for trademark infringement against the client and ordered to stop producing and selling related goods. After the judgment, the defendant continued selling rackets on the same online store. Although no longer marking trademarks on the rackets, they used nearly identical patterns, colors, and text标识, demonstrating subjective intent. The defendant's use of identical names to genuine products constituted serious infringement with an obvious intent to "free-ride" on the plaintiff's brand.

Significance: This case marked the first time our client's trade name and packaging were recognized as "influential" trade names and packaging under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which has significant implications for subsequent similar cases.

VII. Case Confirming Non-Infringement of Copyright Between Beijing and Zhejiang Companies

Attorneys: Xu Qian, Liu Jinfeng

Case Summary: Plaintiff, a Beijing company, created an artwork "Partial View of a Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains" by selecting and copying/digitally creating a portion of the public domain work "A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains," and obtained a copyright registration. The defendant, a Zhejiang company, sent a cease-and-desist letter and filed complaints on multiple e-commerce platforms, leading to the plaintiff's product removal. The plaintiff requested the defendant to withdraw the letter and complaints or file suit within one month. After receiving no response and no withdrawal, the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The court held that the original work was in the public domain, both parties' creations were derivative works of public domain material, and determined the plaintiff did not infringe.

Significance: This case affirmed that二次创作 based on public domain IP for commercial use can be permissible. The court emphasized that judicial decisions should seek balance between protecting creator incentives and promoting cultural heritage and industry prosperity. Over-protection of single creative成果 may hinder full utilization of public domain resources and development of the cultural creative industry.

VIII. Unfair Competition Dispute Between Sichuan and Anhui Seasoning Companies

Attorneys: Hu Fengfeng, Zhou Chunxia, Liu Jiawei

Case Summary: Plaintiff, a Sichuan company established in 1979 specializing in花椒油 and similar products, sued a defendant for producing and selling "Kangchuan Fanjiang" brand花椒油 products, alleging the defendant's trademarks, bottle designs, labels, and packaging infringed the plaintiff's influential product packaging and constituted unfair competition.

Significance: This case provides a new approach for determining "influential product packaging and trade dress" in judicial practice. It suggests comprehensively considering trademark registration procedures when assessing product packaging distinctiveness, and cautiously evaluating whether repeated, non-continuous packaging iterations reach the "certain influence" threshold based on specific evidence.

IX. Appearance Design Patent Infringement Administrative Adjudication Case

Attorneys: Yan Fei, Zhou Haili

Case Summary: The respondent operated an online store on a livestream platform selling and offering for sale electronic products that allegedly infringed the claimant's appearance design patent. The claimant filed a request for administrative adjudication with the local intellectual property office. Applying the "overall observation, comprehensive judgment" principle for infringement determination, combined with a "independent infringement determination" method for partial appearance designs, the hearing panel found the accused products fell within the patent's protection scope. The IP office issued an administrative ruling finding infringement and ordering the respondent to cease infringing activities.

Significance: Electronic products have short life cycles requiring rapid protection. The involved patent used a combination of solid and dashed lines, where solid lines defined specific局部设计 content to be protected, while dashed lines indicated non-protected functional areas and clarified positional relationships within the整体 product. This demonstrates that partial appearance designs better address protection痛点 for electronic products, improve patent infringement comparison efficiency, and reduce disputes.

X. Utility Model Patent Invalidation Case

Attorney: Wang Yajun

Case Summary: The patentee and invalidation requester were core competitors in the same industry. Just before both were to participate in multiple major tenders, the patentee initiated patent infringement litigation against the requester seeking 1 million yuan in damages and widelypublicized the lawsuit through various channels. This forced the requester into urgent legal proceedings and jeopardized its reputation and ability to participate in project bids. Our firm was engaged to provide comprehensive services. We simultaneously responded to the infringement litigation while filing for patent invalidation. Ultimately, the patent was fully invalidated by CNIPA, resolving the infringement lawsuit due to lack of legal basis for rights.

Significance: The key breakthrough was our team's precise检索 of a pre-disclosure Douyin video posted by the patentee's inventor. Using this as关键证据, we filed for invalidation based on "lack of novelty," leading to full invalidation of the patent and resolving the 1 million yuan litigation risk at its source. From filing to CNIPA's decision took only 4 months, minimizing the legal dispute周期 and preserving the client's market competitiveness and core interests. This case demonstrates our firm's professional capabilities and efficient services in the intellectual property field.