/>iOn September 7, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of the People’s Courts in 2025 (2025年人民法院反不正当竞争典型案例目录). The SPC releases typical cases to ensure that different Chinese courts apply the same laws and principles in a consistent and predictable manner despite China’s legal system not being based on common law. These Typical Cases were released in conjunction with the 2025 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week running from September 8 to September 12 and cover trademarks, trade secrets (with a 166 million RMB verdict), and artificial intelligence model weights (previously reported here), among other areas.
As explained by the SPC regarding the IP-related cases:
1. Unfair competition dispute involving the trademark “XX niu”
——Determination of the act of registering another person’s “influential” trademark
[Case No.] 最高人民法院（2024）最高法民再224号 [Unfair Competition Dispute between Niu XX Group Co., Ltd. and Niu XX (Shandong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Xiang XX]
[Basic Facts] Niu XX Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Niu Group) holds multiple well-known trademarks for products such as sockets in Category 9. The corporate name “niu XX (Electrical Appliances)” has been repeatedly recognized as a well-known trademark in Zhejiang Province. Niu Company was established on January 18, 2008, and its business scope includes electrical appliances, distribution switch control equipment, wires, cables, hardware tools, etc. Niu XX (Shandong) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Niu Shandong Company) was established on January 20, 2020, and its business scope includes household appliances, hardware, etc. It submitted annual reports to the market regulatory authorities from 2020 to 2022. During this period, Xiang, the legal representative and sole shareholder of Niu Shandong Company, also applied to register trademarks containing the words “Niu XX”. Niu XX Group believed that Niu Shandong’s Company’s registration of “Xx Niu” as a corporate name constituted unfair competition and filed a lawsuit in court. The first-instance court held that Niu Shandong Company should have been aware of the reputation of Niu XX Group’s corporate name and trademark, yet it still used “Niu XX,” which incorporates Niu XX Group’s registered trademark and the name “Niu,” as its own corporate name. This showed subjective intent, and that Niu Shandong Company’s business scope was somewhat related to Niu XX Group’s, which could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, constituting unfair competition. The court then ordered Niu Shandong Company to cease using the corporate name containing “Niu” and compensate Niu XX Group for economic losses and reasonable legal costs totaling 100,000 yuan. Niu Shandong Company and Xiang appealed the ruling. The second-instance court held that Niu Shandong Company’s registration of “Niu XX” as a corporate name did not constitute “commercial use” under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and that Niu XX Group failed to provide relevant evidence proving that Niu Shandong Company had actually used its corporate name commercially. The court dismissed Niu XX Group’s lawsuit. Niu XX group, dissatisfied, applied for a retrial with the Supreme People’s Court.
The Supreme People’s Court held in a retrial that the use of a company name as referred to in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes not only the writing of the company name on plaques, transaction documents, promotional advertisements, and product packaging, but also the registration of the company name. Registration of a company name is the beginning of its use. The fact that a Niu Shandong Company’s annual report application and that Xiang XX applied to register related trademarks is sufficient to demonstrate that the company subjectively intended to engage in commercial operations. Even if the company did not actually conduct business operations, its registration of “Niu XX” as a corporate name constituted use under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The Supreme People’s Court then ruled to revoke the second-instance judgment and uphold the first-instance judgment.
[Typical Significance] This case is a prime example of protecting a business operator’s “influential” business name. The ruling clarified that registering another’s influential business name as a business name with a similar business scope, even if the business has not yet engaged in actual business activities, is subject to the regulations of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law if there is evidence of its intent to engage in commercial operations. This case effectively curbs counterfeiting and confusing practices at the source, effectively regulating dishonest practices such as “free riding” and “copying famous brands.”
2. “Centrifugal Compressor Selection” Software and Trademark Infringement Dispute Case
——Determination of infringement of technical secrets and liability for infringement by anonymously establishing a peer company
[Case No.] 最高人民法院（2022）最高法知民终1592号 [Shen XX Group Co., Ltd., Shenyang Tou XX Machinery Co., Ltd. vs. Shenyang Si XX Machinery Co., Ltd., Shenyang Si XX Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Sun Xx Liang, Yin Xx Yang , and Wu XX Po, regarding infringement of computer software copyright and trade secrets]
[Basic Facts] Shen XX Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shen XX Group) and its subsidiary, Shenyang Tou XX Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tou XX Company), filed a lawsuit alleging that they possessed core technologies for the design and manufacturing of centrifugal compressors (including basic impeller model data and selection software). Shenyang Si XX Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Si XX Company) and its subsidiary, Shenyang Si XX Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Si XX Machinery Company, collectively referred to as the Two Si XX Companies), were enterprises co-founded and controlled by Sun Xx Liang, Yin XX Yang , and Wu XX Po (collectively, the Three Natural Persons), and jointly committed computer software infringement and technology secret infringement. The court of first instance held that the Two Si XX Companies had infringed the technical secrets of “basic impeller model data” and ordered them to cease the infringement and compensate them for economic losses of 25 million RMB (including reasonable expenses incurred in defending their rights). The Supreme People’s Court’s second instance found that, based on the evidence presented by Shen XX Group and Tou XX Company, as well as evidence obtained from local market supervision and management departments and public security organs, it was sufficient to prove that between 2008 and 2011, after the two Si XX companies were established, they actually obtained the centrifugal compressor design and manufacturing drawings, the software involved in the case, and related basic data from Shen XX Group and Tou XX Company through improper means, and designed and manufactured multiple allegedly infringing products. At that time, the then-legal representatives of the two Si XX companies acknowledged the two Si XX companies’ trade secret infringement and pledged not to use Shenyang XX Group’s trade secrets thereafter. On October 17, 2011, Si XX Company also pledged to cease infringement and obtained Shen XX Group’s forgiveness. The local public security authorities dropped the case on June 20, 2013. However, based on their prior trade secret infringement, the two Si XX companies have illegally obtained and used the technical secrets involved in the case, and this continues to this day. Based on eight accompanying documents accompanying the allegedly infringing products, Shen XX Group and Tou XX Company detailed the naming conventions for the allegedly infringing products’ impeller codes and their correspondence with the claimed technical secrets. Shen XX Group and Tou XX Company demonstrated through reverse engineering that they could obtain performance data identical or substantially identical to those in the accompanying documents. The two Si XX companies failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the consistency in the naming conventions of their products, nor did they provide sufficient evidence to refute their claims.
The Supreme People’s Court held in its second instance that the selection software and basic-level data have a unique correspondence, and the two cannot be used separately. The two Si XX companies obtained and used the selection software and basic-level data through improper means, infringing on the technical secrets and copyrights of the software involved. While employed by Shen XX Group, Sun and Yin co-founded Si XX Company and held shares through their spouses, engaging in competition with Shenyang XX Group and enriching themselves at the expense of the public interest, clearly violating the principle of good faith. They and the two Si XX companies committed joint infringement. Wu participated to a certain extent in the infringement by the two Si XX companies and provided assistance. The court then ordered the two Si XX companies and three individuals to immediately cease illegally obtaining, disclosing, using, or permitting the use of the selection software and basic-level impeller model data. The two Si XX companies, Sun , and Yin were jointly and severally liable for economic losses incurred by Shen XX Group and Tou XX Company totaling 166,147,802 RMB. Wu was jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned compensation within the range of 3 million RMB. The second-instance judgment also clarified the delayed performance fees for non-monetary obligations such as stopping infringement and monetary obligations to compensate for losses, in order to urge the infringer to promptly and fully comply with the judgment.
[Typical Significance] This case is a classic example of combating the practice of anonymously establishing a competing company and misappropriating the technical secrets of a former employer. The ruling clarifies the burden of proof for subsequent infringement of trade secrets, the liability of employees who infringe upon the employer’s trade secrets by establishing a company under a pseudonym, the identification of infringement involving computer software uniquely associated with specific data, and the statute of limitations for determining liability for damages resulting from continued infringement. This case serves as a valuable reference for similar adjudications.
3. “Natural Protease 3” Trade Secret Infringement Dispute Case
——Regarding the confidentiality of the overall technical solution
[Case No.] 最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终2913号、湖北省武汉市中级人民法院（2022）鄂01知民初707号 [Trade Secret Infringement Dispute between Ai XX Diagnostics Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Bo XX Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Sun XX]
[Basic Facts] New Zealand-based Ai XX Diagnostics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ai) filed a lawsuit in the court of first instance, alleging that it held the rights to the technical secrets for the production process and product preparation procedures for the isolation and purification of natural protease 3 (PR3) from the azure granules of human neutrophils. After leaving Ai, Sun became the majority shareholder and legal representative of Wuhan Bo XX Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bo). Sun violated his confidentiality obligations by disclosing Ai’s technical secrets to Bo, and then, together with Bo, used the secrets to illicitly profit. They then applied for patents for the secrets, resulting in the disclosure of the secrets and seriously damaging Ai’s legitimate rights and interests. The court of first instance held that the patents and the secrets were substantially identical in technical solution, and that the patent application utilized and partially disclosed the secrets. Bo used the secrets to produce PR3 products, and Sun, in violation of his confidentiality obligations, disclosed the secrets to Bo and permitted their use, thereby jointly infringing upon the secrets. The first-instance judgment ordered Bo and Sun to immediately cease their infringing activities and jointly compensate Ai for 1.8 million RMB in economic losses. Ai, Bo, and Sun appealed the ruling. Ai argued that the compensation awarded was too low; Bo and Sun argued that the technical information in question did not constitute a trade secret and that its contents were already known to the public.
The Supreme People’s Court held in its second instance that the technical secrets involved in the case encompass a substantial amount of technical information and constitute a relatively complete technical solution. Even if some of the technical information is publicly known, the interrelationships between the technical information and whether the overall technical solution is publicly known must be considered. In this case, Ai Company has provided preliminary evidence demonstrating that it took appropriate confidentiality measures for the technical information involved, and reasonably demonstrates that the technical information involved was infringed. While the isolation and purification of PR3 from azure granules in human neutrophils is a technique known to those skilled in the art, the technical information involved consists of specific operational steps and sequences, involving a large number of reagents, their contents, and the selection of relevant operating parameters. This required repeated experimentation, modification, optimization, and adjustment to arrive at a complete technical solution, which inevitably incurred significant research and development costs. Ai Company implemented this operational process in actual production, achieving satisfactory results. Therefore, specific information disclosed separately based on separate pieces of evidence cannot be used to prove that the overall technical solution or the specific steps corresponding to each secret point in the technical secrets involved were publicly known. Bo Company and Sun’s claim that the technical secrets involved were publicly known is untenable. The amount of compensation awarded at first instance is not manifestly inappropriate. The court then ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
[Typical Significance] This case is a classic example of equal protection of foreign rights holders’ trade secrets in accordance with the law. The judgment in this case emphasizes that a systematic and complete technical solution formed through experimentation and optimization can still be deemed unknown to the public. In principle, a simple combination of fragmented information from different sources cannot be used to deny the existence of a technical secret. This case protects trade secrets generated abroad within China, conducts useful exploration in the cross-border judicial protection of trade secrets, fairly and equally protects the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders in accordance with the law, and enhances the confidence of foreign-invested enterprises in investing in China. It is a typical example of the People’s Court practicing the principle of equal protection between China and foreign countries and optimizing the rule of law business environment.
…
5. Trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute involving “live streaming sales”
——Identification of counterfeit and confusing behavior in live streaming
[Case No.] 浙江省衢州市中级人民法院（2025）浙08民终563号、浙江省衢州市衢江区人民法院（2024）浙0803民初1192号 [Hua XXTechnology Co., Ltd. v. Quzhou Da XX E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Zhang XX , Beijing Dou XX Technology Co., Ltd., et al., Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute]
[Basic Facts] Hua XX Technology Co., Ltd. (holds four registered trademarks, including “Hua XX,” approved for use on mobile phones and other products in Class 9. Trademarks such as “Hua XX” have been recognized as well-known trademarks for mobile phones by effective judgments, and the “Hua XX” brand name constitutes a “certainly influential” corporate name. Quzhou Da XX E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Da XX Company) and Zhang XX (Da XX Company’s former sole shareholder and legal representative), without Hua XX Company’s authorization, used multiple Douyin (TikTok) accounts under their control to produce and publish a large number of short videos bearing the Involved Trademarks and Logos as the primary traffic source for livestreams. After improperly directing traffic, they used livestream studios resembling Hua XX Company’s physical stores as a permanent backdrop for livestreams. They also used the Involved Trademarks and Logos through livestream stickers, the host’s attire, language and behavior, and product placement, selling digital products from brands such as Niu XX and earning commissions. Hua XX Company filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that Da XX Company, Zhang, and others cease infringement of the trademark in question and cease engaging in unfair competition, and compensate Hua XX Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.1 million RMB. During the trial, Da XX Company reduced its registered capital from 1 million RMB to 10,000 RMB and changed its legal representative. Zhang also transferred his 100% equity in Da XX Company to an outsider. The court of first instance held that Da XX Company and Zhang jointly infringed Hua XX Company’s exclusive right to use its registered trademark and engaged in unfair competition. The court of first instance awarded punitive damages triple the commission earned from product promotion during the period of infringement, and ordered Da XX Company to compensate Hua XX for economic losses and reasonable defense costs totaling 1.1 million RMB. Da XX Company and Zhang appealed the ruling.
The Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province held in its second instance that this case involved trademark infringement and unfair competition, in which a well-known livestreamer and company used short videos and livestreams to leverage the reputation of a well-known trademark to attract followers and traffic, and subsequently sold a large number of low-priced products similar in appearance to those of the infringed party through livestreams. Although Da XX Company and Zhang XX actually sold a small number of Hua XX Company mobile phones, their use of Hua XX Company’s trademark far exceeded the scope of fair use, likely causing consumer confusion and constituting trademark infringement. Furthermore, the two defendants’ actions, such as posting short videos and livestream stickers, constituted unauthorized use of “influential” corporate names, product names, and other misleading and confusing practices, constituting unfair competition under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The first-instance court, basing its ruling on commission income during the infringement period and taking into account factors such as the trademark’s influence, the nature and scale of the alleged infringement, the intentional nature of the infringement, and the severity of the infringement, awarded triple punitive damages, fully supporting Hua XX Company’s claim for 1.1 million RMB in economic losses and reasonable defense costs, as deemed appropriate. The Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance] This case is a prime example of combating trademark infringement and unfair competition in the live streaming e-commerce model. The ruling determined that the use of platform mechanisms and algorithmic rules to prominently display others’ well-known commercial logos, improperly diverting traffic and causing confusion, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. This case fully demonstrates the judicial direction of strengthening the protection of well-known brands and cracking down on unfair competition, promoting the healthy and orderly development of the live streaming industry.
…
8. Unfair Competition Dispute over “Transformation Comic Special Effects”
——Anti-unfair competition law protection of AI model structure and parameters
[Case No.] 北京知识产权法院（2023）京73民终3802号、北京市朝阳区人民法院（2023）京0105民初71391号[Unfair Competition Dispute between Beijing Dou XX Technology Co., Ltd. (presumably Douyin) and Yi XX Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (presumably Yiruike)]
[Basic Facts] On June 15, 2020, Beijing Dou XX Technology Co., Ltd. launched a manga transformation special effect on its “Dou XX” app. This special effect reconstructs facial features in real-time, adapting them to lifelike proportions, and then fine-tunes them, transforming them into a manga style in real time. Dou XX Company claims that this feature is enabled by artificial intelligence technology and underwent a complex research and development process, and has been widely welcomed by the market since its launch. On August 4, 2020, Yi XX Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. launched a girl manga special effect on its mobile application. The manga characters and videos created by this special effect are visually highly consistent with Dou XX Company’s manga transformation special effect. Dou XX Company claims that Yi XX Company plagiarized the structure and parameters of the manga transformation special effect model, and that the girl manga imagery is highly similar to the manga transformation special effect. This conduct constitutes unfair competition. Dou XX Company filed a lawsuit, requesting that Yi XX Company cease the infringement, eliminate the infringement, and compensate Dou XX Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling over 5 million RMB. The first-instance court held that Yi’s actions harmed Dou’s competitive interests and constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Yi XX appealed the ruling.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in its second instance that Dou XX invested significant operational resources in the development of the comic transformation special effects model. The model’s parameters and structure, after data training and calibration, enabled users to generate animated characters that corresponded to real people when using the Douyin app, thereby providing Douyin with innovative advantages, operating profits, and market benefits. The comic transformation special effects model (structure and parameters) constituted a competitive interest protected by anti-unfair competition law for Douyin. Based on a comparison of the evidence regarding likelihood of access, comparison of model structure and parameters, and evidence of independent research and development, it is highly probable that Yi XX directly used the structure and parameters of Douyin’s model. In the absence of contrary evidence, Yi should bear the consequences of its failure to provide sufficient evidence. Yi directly used the AI model structure and parameters developed by other businesses at the expense of significant human, material, and financial resources. This saved time and investment in drawing training data and model training, quickly undermining Dou XX’s competitive advantage built on hand-drawn training data and computing power. Shortly after Dou’s transformation comic effects launched, Yi began competing with Dou XX for traffic and users. These actions violated generally accepted business ethics in the field of AI R&D and operation, and were unfair. Yi XX’s girl comic effects model and Dou XX’s transformation comic effects model offer similar effects, with overlap in user groups, target markets, and product delivery methods. Therefore, it can be concluded that the girl comic effects have a strong substitution and diversion effect on the transformation comic effects model. Yi has caused substantial damage to Dou’s competitive interests, disrupted AI model operations and a healthy and orderly competitive order, and harmed the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Therefore, Yi’s conduct in the case constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance] This case is a prime example of legally protecting the competitive interests of developers in AI model structures and parameters. The ruling clarified that the AI model parameters and structures developed by operators through data training, optimization, and tuning can bring them innovative advantages and operational benefits, and thus constitute competitive interests protected by anti-unfair competition law. This case has positive implications for regulating the development of the AI industry and maintaining market competition order in emerging sectors.
