Internet IP protection in China: legislative evolution, judicial practice, and enforcement strategies

In the digital economy era, the internet has evolved from a mere information conduit into a critical repository for corporate assets and brand value, where domain names act as digital addresses and copyrighted content drives traffic, jointly forming the cornerstone of online intellectual property (IP). However, advancing technology has made cybersquatting and copyright infringement increasingly frequent and concealed, posing significant brand protection challenges.

This article outlines the evolution of relevant Chinese legislation and systems in recent years, analyses typical judicial practices, and provides actionable strategies grounded in corporate experience, offering guidance for industry participants.

The revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law, implemented on October 15 2025, further strengthens the regulation of cybersquatting. Article 7 of this law explicitly identifies acts such as “unauthorised use of the main part of another person’s domain name, or the website name, webpage, new media account name, application name, or icon of another person, which has certain fame” as unfair competition.

With the rise of social media, corporate accounts and app icons have become essential brand assets, with commercial value even surpassing that of traditional domain names. Therefore, including such new types of online identifiers into the protection scope effectively addresses the evolving needs of the digital economy. From a legislative technique perspective, this provision clearly outlines typical infringements while reserving space for identifying future new forms of online unfair competition.

Regarding legal effect, rights holders and the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) can now directly invoke this provision to initiate legal remedies or administrative enforcement procedures without needing to circuitously apply the Trademark Law or general principles of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This significantly enhances the efficiency of dispute resolution and the effectiveness of administrative enforcement.

China’s approach to governing online IP infringement prioritises prevention and addressing the root causes. Platform operators are required to take proactive responsibility for the protection of IP and the maintenance of fair competition by adopting reasonable measures to prevent and address IP infringements occurring on their platforms, according to the following laws and judicial interpretations:

• Article 41 of the E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China;

• Article 6.8 of the Service Norms for Third-party E-commerce Transaction Platforms;

• Article 15 of the Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks; and

• Rule 9 of the Provisions by the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving Infringement of the Right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks.

The aforementioned measures include:

• Establishing IP protection rules;

• Setting up convenient channels for rights holders to file complaints;

• Handling infringement complaints promptly and appropriately;

• Taking necessary actions against repeat infringers;

• Preserving relevant records; and

• Cooperating with law enforcement investigations.

Between September 2024 and February 2026, the SAMR has progressively clarified and refined the obligations of e-commerce platforms regarding merchant verification, complaint handling and resolution, and assistance in investigations, along with the legal consequences of non-compliance. This has been achieved through a series of measures, including organising 81 e-commerce platforms nationwide to sign a self-discipline convention, introducing regulations (recently published for public comments) on platform assistance in investigating infringement cases, and implementing routine “retrospective” supervision.

These measures demonstrate the SAMR’s institutional innovation and determination in combating online black and grey markets and solidifying platform operators’ responsibilities.

In July 2025, the Supreme People’s Court clarified, for the first time in a typical case, the judicial protection standards for domain names as part of “prior civil rights” under Article 32 of the Trademark Law. In this case, the apex court systematically articulated the “four requirements” for a domain name to receive prior rights protection, which are:

• The domain name registration date precedes the application date of the disputed trademark;

• The domain name possesses a certain fame among the relevant public;

• The disputed trademark is identical or similar to the domain name identifier; and

• The registration and use of the disputed trademark are likely to cause confusion among the relevant public.

This case emphasises a dynamic and substantive review standard that comprehensively evaluates the domain name’s actual use, the relevance between the website content and the designated goods/services of the disputed mark, the market reputation and consumer perception of the domain name, etc. By establishing a clear legal framework for resolving conflicts between domain names and trademarks, this approach aligns with branding practices in the internet era while preventing injustices that may arise from rigid application of the law.

In the internet age, infringing content often spreads via platforms such as short videos and live streams. To enhance user experience and traffic, platforms deeply intervene in content generation and dissemination through algorithmic recommendations, curated collections, format conversions, and other means. Their role has extended beyond a mere network service provider simply offering information storage space. In recent years, several judgments have further clarified platforms’ heightened duty of care and liability boundaries in specific scenarios.

For instance, a short video platform created topics, categories, and collections for a popular TV series. Numerous infringing clips uploaded by users appeared in these sections and were readily accessible for viewing or downloading. The court found that the platform had effectively recommended the relevant content and, being in a position where it should have known about the user infringement without taking timely and effective measures to stop it, this constituted contributory infringement (Su 12 Min Zhong No. 518, 2024).

In another example, a platform technologically processed user-uploaded musical scores, converting them into a game-like animation with sound for others to use. The court found that the platform had altered the original form of the work through specific technical means, which exceeded the scope of merely providing information storage space and constituted an infringement against the right of communication through information networks (Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 941, 2024).

These cases demonstrate a shift towards stricter platform liability, which benefits rights holders. On one hand, it effectively curbs the escalation of infringement harm caused by algorithmic recommendations and technological processing. On the other hand, it provides clearer grounds for rights holders to directly hold platforms accountable. By compelling platforms to assume higher standards of review and blocking obligations, the dissemination chain of infringing content can be cut off more efficiently, simultaneously laying the groundwork for rights holders to secure more substantial damages.

While the internet has exacerbated the concealment of infringement, technological advancements and legal improvements have provided enterprises with diverse remedies. It is recommended that companies comprehensively consider the nature of the infringement, their rights protection goals, and the cost-benefit analysis to select the optimal strategy.

It is recommended that enterprises adopt a three-tiered strategy of ‘core protection, defensive extension, and dynamic adjustment’.

Core protection should encompass domain names precisely matching the company’s main brand, including essential suffixes such as .com and .cn, as well as country-code top-level domains for key business markets. Defensive registrations can target common variations, such as homophones, lookalike characters, number or letter substitutions, and hyphenated forms. Enterprises should, in terms of dynamic adjustment, promptly register new top-level domains or adjust their existing domain name structures based on evolving business needs.

Enterprises are advised to monitor in real-time the registration, status changes, and expiry of brand-related domain names. They should utilise multidimensional indicators such as character similarity, phonetic similarity, and semantic relevance to identify potentially infringing domain names.

Furthermore, given that squatters often simultaneously create identically named social media accounts or launch similarly named apps after registering a confusingly similar domain name, enterprises should establish a cross-platform unified monitoring mechanism to achieve comprehensive protection of their digital assets.

Domain name disputes can generally be resolved through negotiation, domain dispute resolution procedures, or judicial litigation. Among these, negotiation can help rights holders acquire the domain name quickly and at low cost, but the outcome is uncertain and carries transactional risks. Judicial litigation is more appropriate for complex cases involving other infringing or unfair competition acts where claiming damages is necessary.

In practice, the most mainstream and efficient method of domain name rights enforcement is through domain dispute resolution procedures. Depending on the domain name suffix, rights holders can file complaints under the rules of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP, which is applicable to generic top-level domains such as .com, .org, and .net) or the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP, which is applicable to China's country-code top-level domains such as .cn and .中国) with dispute resolution service providers accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the China Internet Network Information Center, requesting the cancellation or transfer of the domain name.

Under the CNDRP or UDRP, a complaint will be supported if it simultaneously satisfies the “three requirements” stipulated in the relevant rules (see paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP and Article 8 of the CNDRP):

• The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights;

• The domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

• The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

To achieve efficient and secure rights management, rights holders should leverage both the China Copyright Protection Center’s registration system and blockchain forensics, forming a dual rights confirmation mechanism.

The Copyright Protection Center, as a national-level copyright protection and service institution and the sole domestic body for computer software copyright registration and copyright pledge registration, offers the highest level of recognition for registrations, though processing times are longer and costs higher. Blockchain forensics, conversely, allows for instantaneous timestamp generation and certification at a lower cost, making it suitable for rapid, bulk content protection.

Furthermore, enterprises should establish comprehensive records covering the entire life cycle of a work, from creation to licensing and assignment. In cases of commissioned works, collaborative works, or works made for hire, rights ownership should be clearly defined through written agreements. This ensures that in the event of an ownership dispute or infringement lawsuit, the legality and integrity of the rights chain can be proven swiftly and conclusively, avoiding enforcement failures due to ownership defects.

To address the current challenges of online copyright infringement – which are characterised by rapid dissemination, minimal trace retention, and difficulties in evidence collection – rights holders can, within legal and compliant frameworks, utilise web crawlers to capture platform content and employ AI recognition technologies to compare images, music, and videos that have been altered by infringers (e.g., reshaped, recoloured, cropped, or spliced), thereby achieving real-time monitoring and in-depth analysis. Furthermore, these technical means enable a quantitative assessment of the infringement scale (including dissemination volume, duration, estimated illicit profits, and advertising revenue conversion), providing data-driven insights for calculating damages and formulating enforcement strategies.

Regarding evidence preservation, rights holders can choose flexibly based on specific circumstances. For bulk evidence where timeliness is critical, real-time blockchain forensics is preferable. For significant infringements and situations where the admissibility of evidence in foreign proceedings might later be an issue, traditional notarisation methods should be used or supplemented.

For copyright infringement, rights holders can flexibly select from various channels based on the nature of the infringement, its impact, and their relief needs, including platform complaints, administrative reports, criminal complaints, and civil litigation.

For less severe infringements concentrated on specific platforms, platform complaints can be used first to achieve swift removal of infringing content through low-cost, convenient procedures.

For larger-scale infringements, reports can be filed with the SAMR or the competent copyright administrative department, leveraging administrative coercive power for investigation and fines, creating an effective deterrent.

For serious conduct suspected of constituting a crime, reports can be made to public security organs (i.e., the police department), utilising criminal investigation, confiscation of illegal gains, and the pursuit of criminal liability, representing the strongest legal deterrent.

For infringements with significant impact causing severe damage to the rights holder, where comprehensive relief via injunctions and damages is needed, rights holders can initiate civil litigation as a final judicial remedy.