"One case is worth more than a dozen documents." To fully leverage the exemplary and guiding role of typical cases and demonstrate the firm stance of Shanxi courts in strengthening judicial protection of intellectual property, the Shanxi High Court has released the top ten typical cases of intellectual property judicial protection for 2024. These 10 cases cover various types of intellectual property, including copyrights, trademarks, patents, enterprise names, technical contracts, and trade secrets. They involve fields such as the preservation of traditional culture, innovation in sales models, application of patented technologies, and protection of well-known trademarks and trade secrets. These cases not only reflect the fundamental stance of strict intellectual property protection but also prevent the abuse of rights by rights holders, balancing public interest and incentivizing innovation. They highlight the achievements of Shanxi courts in comprehensively strengthening judicial protection of intellectual property, better serving and supporting the practice of Chinese-style modernization in Shanxi. These cases have strong exemplary and guiding significance for improving the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication across the province and raising public awareness of respecting and protecting intellectual property.

Table of Contents

Case 1: Copyright Protection of Works Derived from the Public Domain Must Balance Public Interest  

Case 2: Profiteering Through Abnormal Bulk Litigation Should Be Regulated  

Case 3: Trademark Owners Have No Right to Prohibit Prior Use by Others  

Case 4: Imitating Original Technical Features Still Constitutes Infringement  

Case 5: Operators Using "Dropshipping" Must Still Fulfill Review Obligations  

Case 6: Repeated Use of Legally Registered Enterprise Names Does Not Necessarily Constitute Infringement  

Case 7: Technical Development Contracts Should Specify Clear Acceptance Criteria  

Case 8: Selling Goods Known to Be Counterfeit Trademarks Constitutes a Crime  

Case 9: Profiteering from Selling Empty Bottles of Well-Known Liquor Brands Constitutes a Crime  

Case 10: Profiteering by Using Corporate Trade Secrets Constitutes a Crime  

---

Case 1: Copyright Protection of Works Derived from the Public Domain Must Balance Public Interest  

Wang v. A Tourism Culture Company (Copyright Infringement Dispute)  

Case Summary  

The Emperor Yao Mausoleum is a national key cultural heritage site. Wang’s father created totem works for Chinese surnames, based on the Hundred Family Surnames, combined with ancient Chinese characters and unearthed artifacts, such as totems for “Li” and “Zhang,” and held the copyrights. After his death, Wang inherited these rights.  

A tourism culture company, the operator of the Emperor Yao Mausoleum scenic area, without permission, carved 103 surname totem works onto the surname totem pathway in the scenic area and displayed them via video. Wang discovered this and sued, demanding that the defendant cease infringement, destroy the totem pathway, issue a public apology, and pay over 3 million yuan in damages.  

The court found that the surname totem works were protected under copyright law, and the company’s unauthorized use constituted infringement. However, the works carried strong ethnic significance tied to Chinese surname culture, and the scenic area’s use was partly aimed at promoting Emperor Yao culture, serving a public interest. Destroying the pathway, built with significant investment, would be wasteful and contrary to socialist core values and the green principles of the Civil Code. To balance the author’s rights, resource conservation, and cultural promotion, the court facilitated mediation, resulting in the company paying Wang 400,000 yuan in licensing fees and damages.  

Significance  

Copyright law protects authors’ rights, and unauthorized use constitutes infringement, requiring compensation. However, its deeper purpose is to encourage cultural creation and dissemination to promote cultural prosperity. When works are derived from the public domain and their dissemination serves a public interest, the protection should favor broader use while ensuring fair economic returns for the rights holder. This case, resolved through mediation, balanced copyright protection with cultural dissemination, preserved the scenic area’s integrity, and promoted the creative transformation and innovative development of Chinese traditional culture, enhancing national cohesion and cultural identity.  

---

Case 2: Profiteering Through Abnormal Bulk Litigation Should Be Regulated  

A Trading Company v. An E-commerce Studio and Wang (Copyright Infringement Dispute)  

Case Summary  

In July 2022, a cultural media company created photographic works such as “Striped Skirt” and published them online, later transferring the property rights to a trading company. In May 2023, the trading company found that an e-commerce studio, without permission, used 11 of these works for commercial promotion on its online store’s sales page and sued for cessation of infringement and 10,000 yuan in damages and reasonable expenses.  

Investigation revealed that the trading company, established in July 2021, was involved in 794 lawsuits against 281 entities, including eight similar copyright infringement cases in the same court. The e-commerce studio was a sole proprietorship owned by Wang.  

The court found infringement and held Wang liable as the studio’s investor. However, the works, created via smartphone with low originality and published online without watermarks or other anti-infringement measures, were foreseeably at risk of unauthorized use. The plaintiff’s pursuit of high damages through bulk litigation warranted regulation. Considering the works’ creation difficulty, market value, the defendant’s infringement nature, business scale, and the plaintiff’s nationwide bulk litigation, the court awarded 600 yuan in damages and expenses.  

Significance  

Commercial rights enforcement is a legitimate exercise of rights, but when litigation becomes the primary or sole profit-making tool, it deviates from the purpose of intellectual property protection and should be regulated. This case clearly conveys the value of curbing litigation as a commercial enforcement strategy, reminding rights holders to exercise rights reasonably and avoid turning intellectual property into a profiteering tool, which would face legal regulation.  

---

Case 3: Trademark Owners Have No Right to Prohibit Prior Use by Others  

Ma v. A Company’s Jindeli Glasses Store (Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute)  

Case Summary  

A company’s Jindeli Glasses Store, established in 1987, consistently used the “Jindeli” mark as its storefront sign for glasses sales but did not register it as a trademark. Ma established a Jindeli Glasses Store in 2000 and registered the “Jindeli” trademark in 2005. Ma claimed that the company’s use of “Jindeli” infringed its trademark rights and constituted unfair competition, demanding the company cease infringement, change its name, and pay 50,000 yuan in damages and expenses.  

The court found that the company’s Jindeli Glasses Store, through long-term use and promotion since 1987, had established significant local market recognition for “Jindeli.” Thus, it held legitimate prior use rights. Although Ma had the right to restrict others’ use of “Jindeli,” this right did not extend to good-faith prior users, and the court dismissed Ma’s claims.  

Significance  

The principle of good faith is a core principle of the Civil Code, a commercial ethic in market activities, and a key component of socialist core values. It requires market participants to exercise rights in good faith without harming others or the public interest. In trademark law, even registered trademark owners cannot prohibit good-faith prior use. This case reinforces the value of protecting trademark rights while respecting legitimate prior rights.  

---

Case 4: Imitating Original Technical Features Still Constitutes Infringement  

Li v. Liang (Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute)  

Case Summary  

Li held a utility model patent for a “Fun Desk Lamp with Magnetic Control Pull-Switch.” Liang, without permission, sold allegedly infringing products online. Li sued, demanding cessation of infringement and 100,000 yuan in damages and expenses. Liang argued that her product’s “magnetic pull-rope” differed in appearance and material.  

The court found that, except for the magnetic pull-rope’s appearance and material, the infringing product was identical to the patent. The infringing product used wooden balls with embedded magnets, while the patent used magnetic iron balls, but both relied on the same magnetic attraction principle to control the switch. The court deemed them substantially identical, constituting infringement. Considering the patent’s technical difficulty, market value, and the defendant’s local economic conditions, infringement extent, and profits, the court awarded 5,500 yuan in damages and expenses.  

Significance  

Equivalent features—those achieving substantially the same function and effect through similar means without creative effort—still constitute patent infringement. This case rejected simple substitutions of equivalent features, protecting patentees’ rights, encouraging innovation, and reminding businesses that high-quality development requires innovation, not mere imitation, which lacks legal protection.  

---

Case 5: Operators Using “Dropshipping” Must Still Fulfill Review Obligations  

A Plastics Company v. Yang (Design Patent Infringement Dispute)  

Case Summary  

A plastics company held a design patent for an “Ice Tray.” It found Yang selling infringing plastic trays on his online store and sued, demanding cessation of infringement and 50,000 yuan in damages and expenses. Yang argued he used a “dropshipping” model, where third-party suppliers shipped directly to consumers, and thus he did not handle the goods or commit sales acts.  

The court found the infringing product visually identical to the patented design, constituting infringement. Although Yang used a non-traditional sales model, his actions constituted commercial sales, infringing the plaintiff’s patent. The court ordered cessation and awarded 2,000 yuan in damages and expenses, considering the patent’s value and infringement extent.  

Significance  

With e-commerce growth, many operators use “dropshipping,” where they do not hold inventory but have suppliers ship directly to consumers. However, operators must review the legality of sold goods and bear responsibility for selling infringing products if they fail to exercise due care. This case reminds operators of their review obligations in dropshipping to avoid legal liability.  

---

Case 6: Repeated Use of Legally Registered Enterprise Names Does Not Necessarily Constitute Infringement  

Pu Heng High-Tech Co., Ltd. v. Shanxi Pu Heng Tech Co., Ltd. and Pei (Enterprise Name and Trademark Infringement Dispute)  

Case Summary  

To expand into Shanxi, Pu Heng High-Tech Co., Ltd. found that “Pu Heng” was already registered by Shanxi Pu Heng Tech Co., Ltd. It claimed infringement of its enterprise name and trademark rights, constituting unfair competition, and demanded a name change and 200,000 yuan in damages.  

Shanxi Pu Heng argued its name was legally registered and it operated in a different industry without intent to exploit the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff, originally Hangzhou Pu Heng Tech Co., Ltd. (est. 2010), became a non-regional name in 2019 and registered “Pu Heng” as a trademark in 2020. The defendant, established in 2022, operated in IT consulting.  

The court held that non-regional enterprise names do not inherently have cross-regional exclusivity. The defendant’s use of “Pu Heng” was not trademark use and caused no confusion or harm, so no infringement occurred. Through mediation, the defendant voluntarily changed its name to avoid conflicts.  

Significance  

Fair competition is the soul of a market economy, and judicial rulings ensure fairness and integrity. This case affirmed the defendant’s right to use “Pu Heng” while, through mediation, the defendant accommodated the plaintiff’s expansion, achieving positive legal and social outcomes.  

---

Case 7: Technical Development Contracts Should Specify Clear Acceptance Criteria  

A Tech Company v. An Auto Manufacturing Company (Technical Contract Dispute)  

Case Summary  

An auto manufacturing company and a tech company signed a contract to develop a pickup truck model based on a mature chassis platform, with deliverables including body data and acceptance based on the auto company’s design standards, requiring exclusivity, originality, scalability, versatility, practicality, and cost-effectiveness.  

The tech company delivered the body, chassis, and data, but the auto company raised revisions without specifying clear standards. After further revisions, the auto company refused payment, claiming non-compliance. The tech company sued for contract fees.  

The court found the auto company’s criteria too abstract to serve as specific acceptance standards. Despite communication, no clear metrics were provided. The tech company’s deliverables met industry standards and due diligence, warranting payment.  

Significance  

Technical development involves high investment and risk. Without clear acceptance criteria or agreement, courts should promote technology transfer by assessing delivery based on industry standards. This case reminds parties to specify acceptance criteria in contracts to clarify rights and obligations and avoid disputes.  

---

Case 8: Selling Goods Known to Be Counterfeit Trademarks Constitutes a Crime  

Feng and Others (Crime of Selling Counterfeit Trademark Goods)  

Case Summary  

From January 2020 to December 2023, Feng, without authorization, purchased counterfeit branded clothing and shoes from Lin and Li, selling them for over 1.05 million yuan, with illegal gains of 210,000 yuan. Lin sold counterfeit clothing for 500,000 yuan (20,000 yuan profit), and Li sold counterfeit shoes for 100,000 yuan (4,350 yuan profit). Police seized 9,609 counterfeit clothing items and 1,006 pairs of shoes (worth 400,000 yuan). The prosecution filed charges.  

The court found Feng and Lin’s actions particularly serious, and Li’s serious, constituting the crime of selling counterfeit trademark goods. Feng was sentenced to four years with a 215,000 yuan fine, Li to seven months with a 10,000 yuan fine, and Lin to three years (suspended) with a 20,000 yuan fine, with illegal gains confiscated.  

Significance  

Selling counterfeit trademark goods infringes trademark rights, harms consumers, and disrupts markets. Serious cases warrant criminal liability. Strict judicial action curbs counterfeit circulation, protecting consumer rights.  

---

Case 9: Profiteering from Selling Empty Bottles of Well-Known Liquor Brands Constitutes a Crime  

Zhang (Crime of Illegally Manufacturing and Selling Trademark Identifiers)  

Case Summary  

From March to October 2023, Zhang hired individuals to collect empty bottles, caps, and packaging of a famous liquor brand, sorting them by production date and batch for resale. He sold sets for 65,000 yuan, profiting 45,000 yuan, with unsold inventory of 170 boxes, 151 bags, and 5 loose bottles. The prosecution filed charges.  

The court found Zhang’s actions, enabling counterfeit production, constituted illegally manufacturing and selling trademark identifiers, sentencing him to one year with a 50,000 yuan fine and confiscation of 45,000 yuan in illegal gains.  

Significance  

Trademark identifiers are key to trademark protection, and their illegal manufacture is criminalized to curb infringement. Zhang’s actions facilitated counterfeiting, warranting criminal liability. This case prevents market harm by deterring such activities.  

---

Case 10: Profiteering by Using Corporate Trade Secrets Constitutes a Crime  

Sun and Six Others (Crime of Infringing Trade Secrets)  

Case Summary  

A high-tech company invested heavily in foam and honeycomb ceramics, protecting trade secrets through confidentiality measures. In December 2020, Sun and six others, using trade secrets acquired during employment, established a new company to produce and sell similar products, using proxies to conceal ownership and leveraging the original company’s sales channels. From February 2021 to July 2022, they profited over 3 million yuan. The prosecution filed charges.  

The court found the defendants’ actions constituted serious trade secret infringement. They pleaded guilty, reached a settlement with the company, and were leniently sentenced to three years with fines of 300,000 to 750,000 yuan and professional bans.  

Significance  

Trade secrets are critical to enterprise competitiveness. Infringement undermines innovation and fair competition. This case emphasizes the importance of confidentiality, protecting high-tech enterprises, and fostering innovation by deterring violations.

本文原文为中文，本文由AI辅助翻译

The original text of this article is in Chinese; it was translated with the assistance of AI.