Determining the timespan of damages in trademark infringement litigation in China

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Determining the timespan of damages in trademark infringement litigation in China

Sponsored by

lifang-400px.png
fly-d-hxqyqs2f3j0-unsplash.jpg

Yan Zhang and Lin Mu of Lifang & Partners discuss a Supreme People’s Court case that establishes the timeframe for damages awarded to trademark owners

In pursuant to Article 18 of Interpretation of Supreme People's Court (SPC) on ‘Several issues concerning the application of law in the hearing of civil cases involving trademark disputes’, the limitation for instituting trademark infringement is three years, commencing from the date when trademark owners know or should have known the infringement.

Where the lawsuit was brought after three years, and if the infringement is still continuing, the amount of damages for the infringement shall be calculated by counting back three years from the date when the trademark owner brought the lawsuit to the court.

This rule has established the basic principle of the timespan of damages calculated. However, the court may still award damages calculated for more than three years.

Chongqing People’s High Court issued a final judgment, i.e. (2021) Yu Minzhong No. 166 (2021渝民终166号), which confirmed trademark infringement of the defendant, and ordered the defendant to pay damages of RMB 10 million ($1.5 million) calculated back from 2005, until the filing date of the lawsuit, i.e. October 8 2018.

This lawsuit was filed by Chongqing Pigeon Brand Wire and Cable Limited (Pigeon Brand), against Chongqing Pigeon Emperor Wire and Cable Group Limited (Pigeon Emperor) and a distributor of the first defendant, for trademark infringement and unfair competition, requesting Pigeon Emperor to stop producing, selling and promoting the wire and cable bearing infringing mark “鸽皇(Pigeon Emperor)”, and change the tradename of Pigeon Emperor without inclusion of  “鸽皇(Pigeon Emperor)” or “鸽牌(Pigeon Brand)”.

The main reason for such an unusual judgment is that while the plaintiff registered the trademark “鸽牌(Pigeon Brand)” in class 9 in 1981, the legal representative of the defendant also registered a similar trademark “鸽皇(Pigeon Emperor)” in the same class in 2005, and licensed the defendant to use the trademark, which was finally invalidated by the plaintiff until May 2018.

In pursuant to another judicial interpretation of SPC, no trademark infringement lawsuit could be brought against acts using a registered trademark, before the trademark was invalidated or cancelled.

The court therefore rejected the argument of the defendant that the lawsuit was brought after the time limit expiry of the lawsuit, as the plaintiff would have known the infringement acts before 2013, as the court held that the infringement acts continued until 2018, and the time limit did not expire.

The court further rejected the defendant’s argument for exclusion of calculation of damages from 2005–2018, as the defendant has been using the valid trademark. The court held that as the trademark “鸽皇(Pigeon Emperor)” was invalidated, and the trademark was void from the beginning, the defendant shall undertake liability during the interim. In addition, the court held that the defendant conducted infringing acts maliciously, since the date of its establishment. As a result, the court held that the calculation of damages shall be based on the profits of the defendant infringing acts during 2005–2018.

 

In conclusion, from this judgment, the court could award damages calculated more than three years back from the filing date, but from the start of infringing acts, based on the following conditions:

  • The plaintiff could not file a lawsuit earlier due to the defendant used registered trademarks;

  • The plaintiff successfully invalidated the registered trademarks used by the defendant;

  • The plaintiff filed trademark infringement lawsuit within three years after invalidation of the above registered trademarks;

  • The defendant used the above registered trademark maliciously to imitate the plaintiff’s trademark or tradename.

 

The trademark owners should bear in mind, that if the above conditions are met, the court could award high damages based on a longer timespan, and may even apply punitive damages against the defendant, the plaintiff could obtain more compensation than ordinary cases.

 

Yan Zhang

Partner, Lifang & Partners

E: yanzhang@lifanglaw.com

 

Lin Mu

Senior attorney-at-law, Lifang & Partners

E: linmu@lifanglaw.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The location will be easily accessible for delegates visiting London for the INTA Annual Meeting
In the second instalment of our data-led special reports, Managing IP speaks to the most prolific representatives for REUDs on how they manage their team and filing strategies
Foreign remittance requirements put additional administrative burden on Indian law firms and strain their relationship with foreign associate firms, according to practitioners
IP leaders met in San Francisco this week to discuss patent pools, SEP licensing, and how shifting geopolitics is shaping the future of innovation
View the 2025 Social Impact shortlist celebrating the region's change-makers
News of Elon Musk’s xAI suing OpenAI and the latest statistics from UK’s patent box system were also among the top talking points
The patent pool operator is launching new offerings covering semiconductor technologies amid the rapid adoption of AI and tech
Achim Krebs of HGF and Filip De Corte of Syngenta provide an overview of compensatory term rights for plant protection products around the world
A Full Federal Court ruling on the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions in Australia could pave the way for more filings
In major recent developments, the court ruled in a dispute over washing machines, issued a reimbursement decision, and the Munich Division welcomed a visit from EU officials
Gift this article