Introduction

In an era defined by globalization and the rapid expansion of cross-border e-commerce, safeguarding trademarks—companies’ most valuable brand assets—has become increasingly critical. In 2025, the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court delivered a landmark ruling in the dispute between Shenzhen A Company’s celebrated “HEYTEA (喜茶)” mark and Hong Kong B Company’s “XICHA (禧茶)” label. This case not only underscores the nuanced tests for trademark similarity, product/service overlap, and territoriality under Chinese law, but also offers powerful lessons for businesses operating across jurisdictions.

Case Background

HEYTEA’s Rise
Since its 2016 debut, Shenzhen A Company has propelled its “喜茶HEYTEA”(hereinafter referred to as “HEYTEA”) brand to the forefront of China’s tea‐beverage market through innovative products and distinctive branding. By 2025, “HEYTEA” shops had opened in multiple countries, and its registered marks in China spanned Class 32 (beverages) and Class 43 (tea-service).

XICHA’s Expansion
Hong Kong B Company markets bottled tea drinks under the “禧茶”(sharing the same pronunciation as HEYTEA in Chinese, hereinafter referred to as “XICHA”) name. Although it holds trademark rights in Hong Kong, B Company never registered “XICHA” in mainland China. Undeterred, it promoted its products via cross-border e-commerce platforms and offline channels in the mainland.

Dispute Emerges
In 2023, A Company discovered “XICHA”-branded bottled teas in mainland stores and online, marketed with logos and slogans strikingly reminiscent of “HEYTEA.” Alleging trademark infringement, A Company sued B Company in the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court, seeking injunctive relief and damages.

Core Legal Issues

1. Trademark Similarity

Under Article 57 of China’s Trademark Law and the Supreme Court’s Implementing Rules, similarity is judged across four dimensions—visual form, pronunciation, meaning, and overall impression. B Company argued that the characters 喜 (“xi,” joy) and 禧 (“xi,” felicity) differ in meaning and appearance. The court found instead that:

Form: Both characters share complex, traditional‐style strokes that ordinary consumers might confuse at a glance.

Pronunciation: Both read “xǐ chá,” identical in tone and syllable.

Meaning: While literally distinct, both convey auspicious, positive connotations.

Overall Impression: In tea-drinking contexts—especially given HEYTEA’s fame—“XICHA” would likely trigger a mental association with HEYTEA, risking public confusion.

2. Product and Service Similarity

Despite B Company’s claim that HEYTEA offers in-store tea services (Class 43) while XICHA sells pre-packaged bottled drinks (Class 32), the court applied the “Goods and Services Similarity Table” and noted:

Consumer Base: Both target the same young demographic.

Function: Both satisfy demand for healthy tea-based beverages.

Channels: Both sell through online platforms and brick-and-mortar retailers.

Brand Extension: HEYTEA’s renown as a “well-known” mark under Article 13 allows cross-class protection, covering related goods that might mislead consumers into believing bottled XICHA products stem from HEYTEA.

3. Territoriality Principle

Trademark rights in China are territorially bound. Although XICHA is validly registered in Hong Kong, that registration confers no rights on the mainland. By using “XICHA” in mainland commerce without HEYTEA’s consent, B Company infringed HEYTEA’s exclusive rights under Article 4 of the Trademark Law and Article 6 of the Paris Convention.

Court’s Decision

In its 2025 judgment, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court ruled that Hong Kong B Company and its affiliates had infringed HEYTEA’s mark, violating both clauses of Article 57. The court ordered:

1.Immediate Injunction: Cessation of all “XICHA”-branded marketing and sales in mainland China.

2.Damages: RMB 2 million in compensation, reflecting HEYTEA’s brand strength, the infringement’s duration, and market impact.

3.Destruction: Confiscation and destruction of all infringing inventory and promotional materials.

Analysis & Practical Takeaways

1.Holistic Similarity Assessment

Courts will weigh multiple factors—form, sound, meaning, and context—to gauge consumer perception. Brands should steer clear of any elements that might evoke established marks in these dimensions.

2.Dynamic View of Goods/Services

Beyond rigid class categories, actual consumption scenarios, target markets, and distribution channels matter. Well-known marks enjoy broader, cross-class protection; newcomers must evaluate extension risks.

3.Rigorous Territorial Filing

A mark valid in one jurisdiction offers no automatic cover elsewhere. Companies must proactively register in each target market to avoid inadvertent infringement and to secure enforcement rights.

4. Leveraging “Well-Known” Status

Achieving official recognition as a “well-known” or “famous” mark in China can dramatically expand protective scope. Pursuing such declarations should form part of long-term brand strategy.

Recommendations for Businesses

Comprehensive Registration Strategy: File trademarks early in all anticipated markets, using a multi-class approach if brand extension is foreseeable.

Distinctive Design: Engage IP counsel for pre-filing searches and design reviews to ensure marks do not resemble existing ones in character, sound, or concept.

Active Monitoring: Employ trademark‐watch services—both domestically and abroad—to detect and challenge potential infringements swiftly.

Swift Legal Response: At the first sign of misuse, seek preliminary injunctions to freeze infringing activity and mitigate damages, alongside civil claims for compensation.

Conclusion

The “HEYTEA” vs. “XICHA” dispute delivers a stark warning: in today’s borderless commerce landscape, trademark protection demands vigilance, foresight, and robust legal planning. By understanding how courts dissect similarity, service overlap, and territorial reach—and by leveraging well-known status—enterprises can fortify their brands and maintain a competitive edge in the global marketplace.