Beijing, this ancient capital with thousands of years of history, is not only the political and cultural core of Chinese civilization, but also the epitome of the evolution of China's commercial civilization and the construction of modern rule of law. From the traditional “trademarks” and trade secrets maintained by business rules and clans during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, to the first Trademark Law that was spawned by domestic and foreign troubles during the Beiyang government period in modern times; from the ice-breaking of New China’s “No. 1” invention patent in the early days of reform and opening up, to the shaping of global governance rules by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in the digital economy era in frontier areas such as data property rights and standard essential patents (SEPs). The history of intellectual property development in Beijing is a grand epic of China's transition from a closed traditional handicraft economy to an open modern innovative legal economy.
This report aims to span a vast historical time and space and present a panoramic view of the evolution of intellectual property rights disputes and protection systems in Beijing through detailed historical research, in-depth legal analysis and extensive case mining. The report will deeply explore the business logic, social changes and the sublimation of the concept of rule of law hidden behind the data and laws, and provide a detailed academic and practical insight into the past, present and future of the intellectual property system with Chinese characteristics.
1. The feudal commercial code and the dawn of modern rule of law: from the business regulations of time-honored brands to the Beiyang Trademark Law
Before the establishment of the modern written intellectual property legal system, China's traditional business order was highly dependent on industry guilds, business ethics, and strict inheritance based on blood and geography. This pre-modern “quasi-intellectual property rights” protection model has left a deep imprint on many century-old brands in Beijing, and it has also left intricate hidden dangers in property rights disputes for future generations.
(1) The ancient form of trade secrets: the technical moat of Bianyifang and Quanjude
In the map of Beijing’s food culture, “Bianyi Fang” and “Quanjude” are two standing monuments, and their business history vividly explains the operating mechanism of ancient business secrets. As the oldest existing old restaurant in Beijing, Bianyifang was founded in the 14th year of Yongle in the Ming Dynasty (1416) and has a history of more than 600 years. According to historical records, Bianyifang was originally a delicatessen that moved from Nanjing to Beijing with Zhu Di, the founder of the Ming Dynasty. In order to adapt to the tastes of northern diners, it made technical improvements to Nanjing salted duck, and eventually formed a unique "braised oven roast duck" production process1. In ancient times, when there was no statutory protection such as the Patent Law, this unique baking technique could only rely on an extremely strict "trade secret" system (for example, the core recipe was kept secret and key processes were controlled by core family members) to maintain its exclusive competitive advantage.
Not only at the technical level, but also at the brand asset (trademark/trade name) level, ancient business also relied on celebrity endorsement and cultural empowerment. Legend has it that in the 33rd year of the Jiajing reign of the Ming Dynasty (1552), the loyal minister Yang Jisheng was demoted for impeaching Yan Song. When he was drinking to drown his sorrows at the Bianyifang near Mishi Hutong, he praised "This store is really cheap" and wrote the three characters "Bianbifang" on a plaque1. This plaque and the historical story behind it have given Bianyifang extremely high goodwill and cultural added value. In the hundreds of years of business competition between Quanjude’s “hanging oven roast duck” and Bianyifang’s “braised oven roast duck”, they have actually formed a technical boundary that has not resorted to written laws but is strictly abided by the market, demonstrating the contractual spirit and competitive order of the traditional Chinese business world.
(2) Early trade name confusion and rights protection: Tongrentang’s cross-century traceability
If the roast duck restaurant demonstrates the inheritance of trade secrets, then Tongrentang, a leading figure in the medical field, staged a classic case of "trademark infringement and anti-confusion" in the early days of Chinese business history in the Qing Dynasty. In 1669 (the eighth year of the reign of Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty), Le Xianyang founded the "Tong Ren Tang Pharmacy" in Beijing, and since 1723 he has provided royal medicine to the Qing court, establishing a very high brand monopoly3.
However, the fission of traditional business often stems from the entanglement between clan and capital. Due to difficulties in capital turnover, Le Pingquan, the head of Beijing Tongrentang, introduced Lejia's son-in-law Zhang Yitang to become a shareholder and lead the management3. Houle Pingquan took back its self-operated business, and Zhang Yitang withdrew its shares and established another "Zhangjia Old Drug Store" in Tianjin, which once served as the agent of Beijing Tong Ren Tang in Tianjin. 3 The conflict broke out in 1852. Zhang Yitang changed the name of "Zhangjia Old Pharmacy Store" to "Tianjin Tongrentang" without Roca's permission, which triggered strong dissatisfaction and prosecution by Roca3. This infringement lawsuit that took place in the Qing Dynasty ended in Tianjin Tong Ren Tang’s defeat. The verdict prohibited it from selling Beijing Tong Ren Tang’s medicines and using Beijing Tong Ren Tang’s trademarks, but allowed it to add a distinguishing mark to the font size and use the name “Tianjin Tong Ren Tang Hutchison”3. This historical judgment extremely rarely embodies the original legal principles of "historical coexistence" and "additional distinguishing marks to avoid confusion" in the modern Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and provides a precious sample for studying the boundaries of early commercial rights in China.
(3) The foundation of the modern trademark system: the promulgation of Beijing’s Trademark Law in 1923
At the beginning of the 20th century, with the strong influx of capital and industrial products from Western powers, China's traditional "brand purchase" and "brand name" protection mechanisms seemed to be stretched thin in transnational business competition. Foreign capital not only dumps large quantities of goods, but also arbitrarily registers trademarks of Chinese national brands. Against the background of geopolitical and economic crises that beset both domestic and foreign countries, the Beiyang government in Beijing followed the historical trend and officially promulgated the first "Trademark Law" with complete content and modern style in my country's trademark history on May 4, 1923. 5
Along with the promulgation of this law, the newly established Trademark Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce issued the "Trademark Office Announcement" (No. 1), officially notifying domestic business people and ambassadors to China to inform foreign businessmen in China: Anyone who wants to obtain the exclusive right to trademark must go to the Trademark Office in Beijing to complete the registration procedures5. This announcement legally established the administrative confirmation mechanism for trademark rights and the basic principle of "first to register", marking a historic leap in China's intellectual property system from customary law to statutory law.
After the advent of the Trademark Law, the famous modern Chinese industrialists Rong Zongjing and Rong Desheng brothers made keen use of this legal weapon. The "Bingchuan" brand flour produced by Wuxi Maoxin Flour Company founded by them as early as 1910 has entered the stage of history as China's No. 1 registered trademark8. The trademark consists of text and graphics. The upper part is marked with the company name "Wuxi Maoxin Flour Company" and the English "MOW SING FLOUR MILL". This bilingual trademark design in Chinese and English demonstrates the strategic vision of the national capitalists at that time to participate in international competition and resist the dumping of foreign goods8. At the same time, the "Human Bell" brand trademark launched by the Rong brothers in the cotton yarn industry also shined. In the Chinese Merchant Gauze Exchange established in 1921, the "Human Bell" brand was selected as the only standard trading product in the country. The honor was maintained until 1934 and was exported to Southeast Asia and Japan8. From "warships" breaking the waves to "human bells" ringing, the Trademark Law promulgated by Beijing during the Beiyang period provided an early legal moat for these national brands, carrying the sentiment of "saving the nation through industry". However, with the outbreak of the all-out Anti-Japanese War in 1937, the Japanese army occupied the factory and forced the "warship" trademark to be suspended8, which profoundly revealed that national sovereignty and independence are the fundamental prerequisite for the exercise of intellectual property rights.
| Historical period | Representative events and brands | Core intellectual property elements and legal significance |
|---|---|---|
| Since 1416 | Competition between Bianyifang and Quanjude | Relying on pre-modern trade secrets and core technology control to maintain monopoly position |
| 1852 | Beijing Tongrentang v. Tianjin Tongrentang case | Establishing the early commercial competition legal theory of "additional distinguishing marks to avoid confusion" |
| May 4, 1923 | The Beiyang government promulgated the "Trademark Law" | China's first complete modern trademark law, establishing the principles of prior registration and administrative confirmation of rights |
| 1920s | "Warship" and "Human Bell" trademark registration | National capitalists use modern trademark law to resist foreign capital dumping practice in defensive strategies |
2. Precipitation and breakthrough: the intellectual property dilemma and rebirth of time-honored brands in the modern market economy
As time passes to the modern market economy era, Beijing, as the gathering place of many "Chinese time-honored brands", has witnessed the discomfort and pain of traditional brands when facing the modern intellectual property protection system. The complexity of historical evolution and the weak awareness of early trademark protection have caused time-honored brands to frequently be involved in disputes over rights confirmation and infringement in Beijing’s judicial practice.
(1) The proliferation of "famous brands" and "Li Gui" chaos
In the period of rapid development of the market economy, "free-riding" malicious infringement has become the most severe challenge faced by time-honored brands. Take the famous cloth shoe brand "Neiliansheng" as an example. Its market is flooded with various similar trademarks that are superficial, such as "Fuliansheng", "Xiangliansheng", "Buliansheng" and "Xinliansheng"9. Consumers are often confused and purchase low-quality counterfeit products. Since Neiliansheng Company was restructured in 2001, it has embarked on a long road to safeguarding its rights. Its legal rights protection department needs to crack down on more than a thousand infringing workshops and eliminate more than 10 similar trademarks every year. There is even an extreme phenomenon on the market that “among thousands of pairs of inline shoes, only one may be genuine” 9 .
The same dilemma also happened to the "Xisi Baozi Shop" in the memory of Beijingers. Since "Xisi", as an administrative place name, does not have distinctive features in the Trademark Law, its trademark registration has been repeatedly rejected or revoked10. This gives speculators an opportunity. After the real time-honored Huatian Eryouju (the historical owner of the "Xisi Baozi Pu" brand) filed a lawsuit against an Internet celebrity "Xisi Baozi Pu" (affiliated to the Oriental Mingdi Hotel Management Company) for misappropriating its brand's historical story, the Beijing catering market More than a dozen new stores quickly emerged on the Internet under the banner of "Xisi Baozi", and some companies even solicited franchisees to "land grab", promising to "open stores within 10 days" and promising profits, causing both consumers and franchisees to suffer losses10.
In addition, "Qingfeng Baozi Shop" has also suffered from infringement. In the case of Beijing Qingfeng Baozi Shop suing Shandong Qingfeng Catering Management Co., Ltd. for trademark infringement and unfair competition, which was re-examined by the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court finally ordered the defendant to stop the infringement, the amount of compensation was only RMB 50,00011. This judgment reflects that in the past period, the illegal cost of intellectual property infringement has been too low, causing time-honored brands to fall into a passive quagmire of "difficulty in safeguarding rights and low penalties for infringement"11.
(2) The cross-century rights conflict between Tong Ren Tang and Daoxiang Village
In addition to external malicious infringement, internal rights conflicts between time-honored brands due to historical origins are more difficult. The aforementioned Beijing Tongrentang and Tianjin Tongrentang evolved separately after the founding of the People's Republic of China: Beijing Tongrentang was nationalized, and its "Tongrentang" trademark became the first domestic well-known trademark and "the first batch of Madrid trademark registrations" international trademarks; while Tianjin Tongrentang became a private enterprise after multiple equity transfers. It owns the Chinese famous trademarks "Sun" and "Safflower", and in 2006, it cooperated with Beijing Tongrentang Tongrentang was recognized by the Ministry of Commerce as one of the first batch of "Chinese Time-honored Brands"3. On August 13, 2021, at the critical moment when Tianjin Tongrentang was sprinting for the GEM IPO for the second time, Beijing Tongrentang formally filed a lawsuit with the court, accusing Tianjin Tongrentang of using highly similar infringing logos without permission, and causing confusion by prominently using the company name, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition3.
Similarly, the dispute between the North and South "Daoxiang Village" is also a long judicial case. Southerners admire "Su Dao", while northerners look for "Beidao". The two companies have frequently fought over the issue of historical trademark rights, and have gone through many rounds of administrative invalidation and civil litigation, with each side winning or losing12. The common feature of this type of cases is that when two commercial entities with deep historical roots and both of which have obtained administrative licenses overlap in the modern unified national market, severe tension arises between the exclusivity requirements of modern trademark law and the common reputation formed by history.
(3) Judicial guidance and administrative disruption: Construction of active defence network
Faced with the above dilemma, Beijing's administrative agencies and judicial system worked together to explore a path for intellectual property protection of time-honored brands with Chinese characteristics. The Intellectual Property Prosecution White Paper (2021-2024) released by the People's Procuratorate of Xicheng District, Beijing shows that in cases involving the protection of time-honored brands, problems such as malicious trademark registration, brand attachment, and counterfeiting of traditional techniques are particularly prominent. To this end, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate even released a typical case of criminal crackdown on using counterfeit Beijing Tongrentang trademarks to manufacture Angong Niuhuang Pills and selling them online13.
The "Beijing Time-honored Brands Inheritance, Innovation and Development Report (2021-2025)" clearly states that the intellectual property protection model of time-honored brands must change from "passive response" to "active defense"13. At the level of administrative recognition, the Beijing Time-honored Brands Association follows the principle of "respecting history and orderly inheritance" and conducts careful evaluations of time-honored brands that do have a long heritage but are unable to fully meet the requirements of the current trademark registration form due to historical reasons such as business interruption. Confirmation through flexible methods such as "with a statement of origin" achieves a balance between protecting the essence of the brand and standardizing administrative management13. In addition, the "Opinions on Promoting the Inheritance and Development of Beijing's Time-honored Brands" cuts off the possibility of infringement at the source and clearly stipulates that newly established companies are not allowed to use the names of time-honored brands13. At the judicial level, Beijing courts continue to increase the application of punitive damages, making serious infringers pay a heavy price. By extending their judicial functions, they protect the inheritance and innovative development of time-honored enterprises12.
| Infringement patterns and dilemmas of time-honored brands | Typical cases | Beijing’s judicial and administrative solutions |
|---|---|---|
| "Hitchhiking" and the proliferation of copycat workshops | Neiliansheng was counterfeited by "Fu Liansheng" and other brands, and the Xisi Baozi shop was in chaos | Promote the transformation from "passive response" to "active defense" and strengthen criminal crackdowns |
| The cost of violating the law is low and the amount of compensation is insufficient | Qingfeng Baozi Shop v. Shandong Qingfeng case (50,000 yuan in compensation) | Increase the amount of compensation awarded for intellectual property rights and play the role of judicial punishment and guidance |
| Trademark confirmation conflicts caused by historical origins | The East-West Tongrentang dispute and the North-South Daoxiang Village dispute | Explore the principle of "respecting history and orderly inheritance" and adopt flexible confirmation methods such as annotations of origin |
| Malicious registration leads to brand loss | Various time-honored trademarks are registered by speculators | Administrative opinions are issued to strictly prohibit new companies from using the names of time-honored brands to block squatting at the source |
3. From Desolation to Prosperity: The Establishment of New China’s Patent System in Beijing and National Innovation
If the protection of time-honored brands is the rescue of historical heritage, then the establishment of the modern patent system in Beijing is a great starting point for New China to integrate into the global scientific and technological innovation system.
(1) The ice-breaking and symbolic significance of the “No. 1” invention patent
April 1, 1985 is an important day recorded in the history of modern Chinese rule of law - the "Patent Law of the People's Republic of China" was officially implemented. The establishment of this law marks that China has formally recognized and protected the fruits of citizens’ intellectual labour in the field of science and technology and their private property rights in the form of statutory law. On the first day of implementation, the China Patent Office in Beijing (the predecessor of the State Intellectual Property Office) accepted 3,455 patent applications at home and abroad, setting a “new record in the world’s patent history”14. At that time, all sectors of society showed unprecedented enthusiasm for establishing a patent system14.
In this historic torrent, Hu Guohua, a scientific researcher from the 207th Institute of the Second Academy of the Ministry of Aeronautics and Astronautics (located in Beijing), stood out. The patent application he submitted went through strict review and was officially issued a certificate by the National Patent Office in December 1985, with the patent number "85100001.0"14. The core technical principle of this invention patent titled "Variable Optical Filtering Real-time False Colour Display Method and Device" is to convert black-and-white pictures of the earth taken from satellites into colour images based on specific characteristics, thereby helping scientific researchers identify and extract more geological, meteorological and military information14.
This "No. 1 patent" of New China, which was born in Beijing, has extremely far-reaching symbolic significance. First, it marks that national strategic scientific and technological forces represented by aerospace and aerospace have begun to use modern intellectual property rules to solidify their research and development results; secondly, it declares a profound transformation of China's scientific research system - scientific and technological achievements are no longer just "national property" shared free of charge, but intangible assets that can be clearly defined, authorised and generate huge commercial value. Since then, the number of patent applications in China has begun a process of rapid growth: it took 15 years from the beginning of implementation to the first one million applications, and it only took one year and four months to complete the fifth one million.16 Today, China ranks first in the world in the number of global PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) international patent applications16.
(2) Top-level design and evolution of the intellectual property administrative management system
The prosperity of intellectual property rights is inseparable from the support of an efficient administrative management system. From 1984 to the present, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office has experienced profound institutional changes and functional reshaping, and its trajectory highly coincides with the pace of building China's science and technology innovation center17.
In November 1984, on the eve of the official implementation of the Patent Law, the Beijing Patent Administration was formally established, with offices and offices one, two and three within the organization. This marked that patent management in the capital had entered its initial stage17. With the increase in various types of intellectual property affairs, in January 1995, the Beijing Municipal Government established a "big management structure" and established the Beijing Intellectual Property Office Meeting System, chaired by the deputy mayor and involving 14 committees and bureaus, forming a governance system in which the Municipal Patent Office, the Industrial and Commercial Bureau, and the Copyright Office were responsible for patents, trademarks, and copyrights respectively, coordinating with each other, and performing their respective duties17.
In order to adapt to the compliance requirements of China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the TRIPS Agreement, in January 2000, the Beijing Municipal Government abolished the Patent Administration Bureau originally under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Science and Technology Commission, and formally established the "Beijing Intellectual Property Office" directly under the municipal government, giving it the responsibility to coordinate the city's intellectual property work. Comprehensive functions 17. In 2003, with the burst of innovation vitality in the Zhongguancun Science and Technology Park, the Zhongguancun Intellectual Property Promotion Bureau and the Beijing Agency of the Patent Office of the State Intellectual Property Office were successively established, and began to implement large-scale incubation programs such as the "Patent Engine" to directly forward intellectual property services to the research and development stage of enterprises17. With these strong policy supports, Beijing’s patent structure has undergone a qualitative leap. The abnormal structure in which non-service invention applications accounted for two-thirds in the early stage has been completely reversed. By 2003, the number of applications for high-tech invention patents and employment inventions representing corporate innovation capabilities had completely surpassed utility model and non-employment applications, becoming the absolute mainstream17.
In October 2018, with the deepening of national institutional reform, the Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office restructured, integrating the trademark management responsibilities of the former Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce and the geographical indication management responsibilities of the former Municipal Quality Supervision Bureau, and at the same time divesting patent enforcement responsibilities to the Municipal Market Supervision Administration17. This change realizes the scientific separation and efficiency improvement of intellectual property right confirmation, management and comprehensive administrative law enforcement. As of 2018, the annual number of patent applications in Beijing has reached 211,212, and the number of invention patents held by 10,000 people is 111.2, ranking first in the country17.
(3) Flying into the homes of ordinary people: civilianization of the patent system and private innovation
The intellectual property system is not only exclusive to major powers and multinational corporations, it also stimulates huge private innovation vitality in Beijing's alleys and communities. Hailed by the media as the “House of Invention” in Beijing, Hou Ning’s family of four owns a total of 35 utility model patents, vividly demonstrating the civilian value of the patent system18.
These patents are derived from subtle observations of daily life. For example, in order to solve the pain point of family stews easily sticking to the bottom of the pot, Hou Ning’s mother Li Xiufeng developed a “stew artifact” using five chopsticks; in order to solve the problem of library books that are difficult to clean due to dust mites, Hou Ning, who works at the National Library, designed a pot with a rolling The vacuum cleaner head specially designed for books greatly improved the dust removal effect; and after her husband Sha Taibao witnessed a traffic accident caused by a vehicle passing a height limit pole at an intersection due to excessive height, the whole family brainstormed and designed an infrared height measurement and automatic display height limiter 18.
The jurisprudential and sociological significance of this phenomenon lies in the fact that the intellectual property system has constructed a universal incentive network. By setting utility model patents with relatively low thresholds and short review cycles, the country has effectively encouraged citizens to make minor technological improvements. When ordinary people realize that "intellectual creation is property", they can greatly enrich the supply of practical technology for the whole society. Hou Ning's family's practice of transforming life pain points into patent achievements is an excellent microscopic example of the deep awakening of Beijing citizens' intellectual property awareness.
4. The collision of copyright, culture and personality: the interweaving of international vision and traditional heritage
As a centre of international exchanges and culture, Beijing's intellectual property disputes not only cover hard-core technological patents, but also leave rich precedents on the commercial boundaries of copyright protection, confirmation of rights to traditional cultural symbols, and the spiritual rights of celebrities.
(1) A milestone in transnational copyright protection: Disney v. Beijing Publishing House
In 1995, during a sensitive and critical period for Sino-US intellectual property negotiations (especially in the field of copyright protection), the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court heard a case that attracted widespread international attention - the copyright infringement case of the Walt Disney Company of the United States against Beijing Publishing House and Xinhua Bookstore Beijing Distribution Office.
The court found that Beijing Publishing House published "Disney's Moral Stories Series"19 without authorisation from the Disney Company and the Beijing Publishing House issued it. This act seriously infringes upon Disney's copyright in its well-known cartoon characters and related literary works. On May 18, 1995, the court of first instance made a solemn judgment: the defendant was ordered to immediately stop publishing and distributing the infringing series of books. Beijing Publishing House was required to publicly apologize in newspapers distributed across the country and pay a one-time compensation of RMB 227,094.14 to Disney. It also ordered Great World Publishing Co., Ltd. to bear joint liability for compensation (paying RMB 90,837.66 to Beijing Publishing House)19. Subsequently, the Beijing Higher People's Court issued a second-instance judgment on December 19 of the same year, upholding the cessation of infringement, apology, and compensation claims against Disney. Based only on the fact that Great World Company made a mistake in determining its liability for the children's publishing house, it fine-tuned its internal compensation ratio (adjusted to 45,418.83 yuan)19.
This case occurred in the mid-1990s and was a landmark event for Chinese judicial authorities to strictly implement the Berne Convention and bilateral intellectual property agreements and equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign copyrights holders. It effectively countered the prejudice of the international community at that time about China's "ignorance of intellectual property protection" and demonstrated the professionalism, impartiality and execution capabilities of the Beijing courts in foreign-related copyright trials.
(2) The boundaries of rights of intangible cultural symbols: the battle for Liulichang’s “Clay Figurine Zhang”
In Beijing Liulichang, which has a profound cultural heritage, the inheritance of traditional handicrafts is often accompanied by a fierce collision between family blood and modern corporate systems. "Clay Figurine Zhang", a famous folk art title originating from the late Qing Dynasty, triggered a protracted copyright and unfair competition dispute.
The cause of the case was that Zhang Tiecheng and Zhang Hongyue, descendants of the "Clay Figurine Zhang" family, believed that Zhang Tiecheng and his Beijing Clay Figurine Zhangbogu Ceramics Factory and Beijing Clay Figurine Zhang Art Company used the words "Beijing Clay Figurine Zhang" in their corporate names and product packaging, which infringed on their exclusive rights as a unique name for well-known products and constituted unfair competition21. However, after the Supreme People's Court heard this case, the collegial panel found that the use of the words "Beijing Clay Figure Zhang" by the respondent Zhang Tiecheng and others lacked sufficient factual and legal basis to constitute unfair competition. Therefore, Zhang Wei and others’ claim to stop using the product and compensate for losses is not supported21.
The logic of the judgment in this case reflects the important checks and balances mechanism in intellectual property jurisprudence: even for intangible cultural heritage symbols with profound historical origins and public awareness, the boundaries between privatization and exclusive exclusive rights must be constrained by the strict statutory requirements of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. While protecting the interests of inheritors of traditional culture, the court must also respect the objective facts formed by history and the existing honest and trustworthy business order in the market, and prevent excessive monopolization of symbols with certain public cultural attributes, thereby hindering the widespread dissemination of cultural skills and the overall development of the industry.
(3) Propertyization of personal interests: warnings from Mo Yan’s name and portrait rights case
With the evolution of commercial society, celebrities' names, portraits and other personal rights have gradually acquired extremely high commercial endorsement value and become an intangible asset similar to intellectual property. Although the first instance of the personality rights dispute case of Nobel Prize winner Mo Yan was decided by the Baoan District Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, as a leading Chinese literary figure based in Beijing, Mo Yan's case has profoundly affected the evaluation standards of the commercial value of personality rights in Beijing and even the national judiciary22.
According to the case, a company in Shenzhen used Mo Yan’s name, photos and calligraphy works in corporate promotional videos and advertisements without authorization, and spread them widely on the public Internet to create the illusion that Mo Yan was endorsing its products22. Mo Yan believes that this move has caused uncontrollable damage to his personal reputation and lowered social evaluation. In the end, the court not only ordered the defendant to stop the infringement and apologize, but also supported the plaintiff’s request for compensation of 2 million yuan for property losses and 100,000 yuan for mental damage. 22
Professor Meng Qiang, deputy secretary-general of the China Civil Law Research Association, pointed out in an interview that for a long time, the amount of compensation awarded by Chinese courts in cases of infringement of personality rights has been generally low, making it difficult to substantively punish wealthy infringers22. The total compensation amount of Mo Yan's case reached 2.1 million yuan, which is "quite high" in judicial practice. It marks a major shift in judicial philosophy - judicial authorities have begun to attach great importance to and quantify the property rights and interests behind personality rights, and severely crack down on commercial practices that wantonly cling to the goodwill of celebrities. This concept is highly consistent with the spiritual core of the Beijing judiciary’s comprehensive implementation of the punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property rights in recent years.
5. Global Tribunals in the Digital Era: Beijing Intellectual Property Court’s Benchmarking
In November 2014, as the vanguard of deepening the reform of the judicial system, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the first specialized intellectual property court in the country, was officially established23. The establishment of this specialized judicial institution has completely changed the pattern of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China. In the seven years since its establishment, the hospital has concluded more than 110,000 cases, and its annual caseload has surged from 9,191 cases in 2015 to approximately 26,000 cases in 202123. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court not only strives to solve the chronic problems of traditional intellectual property rights protection, but also exports "China's solutions" with global influence in the fields of digital economy, antitrust and global cutting-edge technology governance.
(1) Using heavy codes to combat disorder: Breakthroughs in punitive damages and litigation preservation
For a long time, intellectual property protection has been stuck in the quagmire of “difficulty in proving, long cycle, and low compensation”23. Through bold judicial innovation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has achieved key breakthroughs in the rules of evidence and the damage compensation system. At the level of evidence, the court actively explores the system of excluding evidence obstruction, and by issuing guidelines such as the "Reference for Evidence in Civil Cases of Infringement of Trade Secrets", it timely transfers the burden of proof, which greatly reduces the burden of rights holders23.
In terms of compensation and relief, the court firmly implements punitive damages. In 2016, in a trademark infringement case involving a well-known clothing brand, the court decisively applied punitive damages calculated at twice the infringer’s profit in the face of the defendant’s obvious subjective malice and years-long infringement. This case was rated as a typical benchmark for the application of punitive damages by the Supreme People's Court23. At the same time, the court implements a refined compensation and liability mechanism. According to 2020 data, the average compensation awarded against manufacturers at the source of the infringement chain is as high as 520,000 yuan; while for small and micro retailers at the end of the chain with smaller subjective faults, the average compensation awarded is only 13,000 yuan. This kind of differentiated adjudication that “attacks the source and cares for the small and micro” demonstrates the warmth and precision of the judiciary23.
In terms of the efficiency of litigation preservation (injunctive relief), the court has created astonishing "China speed". In 2019, a large multinational technology company urgently applied for pre-litigation behavioral preservation on 52 standard essential patents. In view of the urgent risk of patents being maliciously dealt with by others, the court broke with convention and completed the seizure and freezing procedures for 52 patents in only 6 hours within the 48-hour time limit stipulated by law, saving immeasurable losses for the rights holders. The attorneys breathed a sigh of relief23.
(2) The shaping of international discourse: SEP global reconciliation and equal protection
In the global competition for 5G and subsequent communication technologies, the cross-licensing rates of standard essential patents (SEPs) have become the core battlefield of the technology game between major powers. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court demonstrated outstanding global governance wisdom when hearing the SEP dispute between two large multinational communications companies. Faced with such a complex case that may affect the nerves of the global industrial chain and easily lead to cross-border anti-suit injunction conflicts in multiple countries, the court did not simply make a decision. On the contrary, the judge team organized intensive pre-trial meetings that lasted for more than 20 days, gave full play to the mediation mechanism, and actively guided both parties to weigh the pros and cons23. In the end, the two parties reached a package of global long-term cooperation agreements and achieved a one-time global settlement. This achievement provides a "Chinese solution" with great reference significance for resolving similar international disputes23.
This professionalism and prudence have won widespread praise from the international community. As Cui Guobin, director of the Intellectual Property Law Research Centre of Tsinghua University Law School, said, more and more "mutual litigation" cases involving foreign parties choose to litigate in Beijing, which reflects the international community's high recognition of China's judicial credibility23. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has always adhered to the principle of equal protection for both Chinese and foreign parties. It neither provides foreign parties with “super-national treatment” that goes beyond the law, nor does it implement narrow “local protectionism” for domestic enterprises. It has successfully established itself as the preferred venue for international intellectual property litigation23.
(3) Regulating new business formats in the digital economy: A perspective on the top ten typical cases of the Beijing High Court in 2024
In the face of the turbulent digital economy and new Internet business formats, existing statutory laws often lag behind. The Beijing Higher People's Court continues to draw compliance boundaries for innovative businesses by releasing the top ten typical cases of judicial protection of intellectual property every year. From the list of cases released in 2024, we can gain a profound insight into Beijing’s judiciary’s forward-looking layout in digital property rights governance24.
1\. "Ice-breaking trial" to confirm data property rights
Data is known as the "new oil" in the digital economy era and is the fifth major factor of production after land, labor, capital, and technology. However, due to the easy copying and non-exclusive characteristics of data, the confirmation and protection of its rights in the current intellectual property system have always been a world-class problem. In the "Unfair Competition Case of Shumou (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. v. Yinmou (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd.", the Beijing Court made the country's first landmark judgment confirming the validity of the "Data Intellectual Property Rights Registration Certificate"24.
The case shows that a certain company spent a lot of manpower, material resources and technical means to collect and clean a voice data set containing 1,505 hours of Chinese Mandarin, and obtained a "Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate" in accordance with the law. A certain company disclosed a 200-hour data set without permission24. The court of second instance held that although these public voice data did not meet the confidentiality requirements for "trade secrets" in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and could not constitute a "compilation work" within the meaning of the Copyright Law due to lack of originality, the plaintiff had invested substantial labour in the collection, processing and mining of data elements and created significant commercial value24. The court creatively confirmed that the "Data Intellectual Property Rights Registration Certificate" issued by the administrative agency can be used as preliminary evidence that the plaintiff enjoys the property rights and interests in the data and that the data source is legal. The defendant violated the open source agreement and business ethics and took the fruits of others' labour for free, constituting unfair competition24. This case was the first in the world to establish the evidentiary validity of data registration certificates from a judicial level, laying an extremely important institutional foundation for the legal circulation of data elements in the market.
2\. Trademark management of live streaming and self-media platforms
With the rise of short video platforms such as Douyin, online self-media has become a new hotbed for infringement. In a case involving the infringement of the "Baidu" trademark through live streaming, the defendant He registered an account named "Africa Baidu" on the Douyin platform, and vigorously carried out advertising and sales through the "Africa Baidu Product Showcase" column24. Baidu claimed that it had infringed the exclusive rights of the Class 42 "Baidu" registered trademark. The second-instance court overturned the first-instance judgment and clearly determined that "Baidu" had a high level of national awareness at the time of the infringement and constituted a well-known trademark24. The court pointed out that He's prominent use of the logo in a multimedia environment had obvious malicious intent to cling to goodwill and was enough to cause confusion among the relevant public. The final verdict ordered He to pay compensation of 600,000 yuan. It was also determined that the Douyin platform failed to take necessary measures such as disconnecting the link and blocking the account in time after receiving the infringement notice, and it must bear joint liability of 100,000 yuan for compensation24. The case established the criteria for “on-demand identification and cross-category protection” of well-known trademarks in the Internet new media environment, and reiterated the “red flag” duty of care of platform companies under the safe harbor principle.
Similarly, in a case involving the malicious registration of the "Dou Haiyin" trademark, a technology company registered the "Dou Haiyin" trademark in the Internet service field, and accompanied it with promotional copy such as "Take Douyin to check in", with an obvious intention to build on Douyin's extremely high goodwill25. During the review, the court fully considered the characteristics of the Internet industry (such as user growth rate, market coverage and other dimensions) and determined that it violated the prohibition of imitating well-known trademarks in the Trademark Law. It ultimately rejected the State Intellectual Property Office’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment to cancel the trademark25.
3\. Technical boundary identification of pharmaceutical crystalline patents and multifunctional digital products
In the fields of medicine and software, the professional review mechanism of Beijing courts plays a central role. In the invalidation case of the rocuronium crystal form patent, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court clearly pointed out that when reviewing the inventiveness of a drug crystal form patent, even if the method of obtaining the crystal form has a certain degree of obviousness, if the crystal form exhibits superior technical effects (such as stability, solubility, etc.) compared to the existing technology, and this effect is closely related to the final drug, the crystal form patent should be deemed to possess inventiveness25. This referee rule greatly protects the enthusiasm of innovative pharmaceutical companies in the late-stage modification and research and development of drug molecules.
In a digital product classification dispute, Beijing Kingsoft Office Software Company sued the defendant for using the "Rice Hull Reader" logo consistent with its registered trademarks in categories 9, 35, 38 and other categories on similar software24. Faced with the technological status quo of highly integrated functions of modern software, the court established the principle of “based on core functions” to determine the category of goods/services. It pointed out that the differences in the underlying technical paths of the software did not change its basic attributes of providing digital document reading services to users. The court finally determined that the infringement was established and awarded compensation of 2.162 million yuan24. This case provides an analytical framework with great practical significance for trademark infringement comparison in emerging technology industries.
| Overview of typical cases of Beijing High Court in 2024 | Involving core legal areas and technical fields | Judgment innovation and rule establishment |
|---|---|---|
| Unfair Competition Case Involving Data Intellectual Property | Data Element Market Compliance/Anti-Unfair Competition Law | The first case in the country confirming the validity of the data intellectual property registration certificate, providing judicial endorsement for the Lockean labour theory of value of data rights 24 |
| "African Baidu" live broadcast infringement case | Cross-category protection of well-known trademarks / platform joint and several liability | Clarify the identification of infringement of goodwill in the online live broadcast environment, and the boundaries of the review obligations of short video platforms 24 |
| "Douhaiyin" trademark malicious imitation case | Internet well-known trademark identification/trademark administrative confirmation | Propose a comprehensive standard to determine the popularity of Internet brands based on multiple dimensions such as "user growth rate, market coverage"25 |
| "Rice Husk" Software Product Trademark Classification Case | Digital Product Classification/Trademark Approximation Comparison | Establishing judicial review standards for "qualitative classification based on core functions" for multi-functional integrated digital products 24 |
| A pharmaceutical company’s case involving Batroxobin Injection | Concentration review/antitrust administrative litigation | The country’s first antitrust administrative litigation, clarifying the legality of centralized review that does not meet the declaration standards but has exclusive risks 24 |
| Rocuronium Bromide Crystal Form Patent Invalidation Case | Medicinal Chemistry Patent Creativity/Technical Investigator Participation | Establish the review rule 25 that "the ease of availability of the crystal form does not negate creativity, and the focus is on the actual technical effect and the relevance of the finished drug" |
| Plagiarism case involving the Belgian painter "Falling Leaves" | Substantial similarity of copyrights/protection of art works | Systematic plagiarism determination spanning 25 years and involving 122 paintings reflects the equal protection of Chinese and foreign copyrights holders (a compensation of 5 million yuan was awarded) 24 |
| Pop Mart Blind Box Intellectual Property Case | Copyright protection of trendy cultural and creative products / punitive damages | Strict crackdown on the infringement sales of popular trendy IPs such as Molly and Labubu, and consider applying punitive damages 24 |
6. Conclusion and Outlook: From the business network of an ancient capital to the export place of international intellectual property rules
Looking at the historical time and space spanning several centuries, the intellectual property story that happened in Beijing is by no means a boring list of laws, but a magnificent symphony of institutional evolution and social change.
From Bianyifang’s “secret stew recipe” to Tongrentang’s dispute over “Zhangjia Old Medicine Shop”, we have seen ancient Chinese business’s primitive desire for credit and exclusivity; the birth of the “Warship” and “Human Bell” trademarks under the Beiyang Government’s Trademark Law in 1923 reflects the modern national capital’s attempts to exploit the power of imperialism. The tragic exploration of "industry to save the country" using modern legal rules; the "No. 1" invention patent of New China won by Hu Guohua in 1985 echoed the Hou Ning family's 35 down-to-earth civilian utility model patents, and jointly wrote a great chapter in China's awakening from state-led scientific research to national innovation after the reform and opening up.
Entering the 21st century, especially the era of digital economy, Beijing has transformed from a passive follower of international intellectual property rules to a pioneer who actively participates in and even leads the formulation of global rules. Whether it is the strict protection of Disney's copyright in 1995, or the global settlement promoted by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in transnational disputes over standard essential patents (SEPs) today; whether it is the careful control of the commercialization boundaries of traditional intangible cultural heritage in the "Clay Figure Zhang" case, or the bold confirmation of data asset attributes in the country's first data intellectual property case, Beijing's judicial practice has always been at the forefront of balancing incentives for innovation and safeguarding public interests.
Future Outlook:
1. Digitalization and three-dimensional defence of time-honored brands: In view of the dilemma of time-honored brands frequently encountering squatting and "free riding", the administrative and judicial departments need to further deepen the cross-regional joint law enforcement and administrative rights confirmation coordination mechanism. Time-honored enterprises themselves should abandon the outdated defensive concepts and rely on the advanced adjudication rules of Beijing courts in the field of data property rights and Internet infringement to build a three-dimensional intellectual property protection matrix covering trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights (such as packaging and decoration) and even data assets.
2. Improving the rules of the digital element market: The Beijing High Court’s 2024 judgment confirming the validity of the data intellectual property registration certificate is of epoch-making significance. In the future, as the demand for artificial intelligence training data (large model corpus) explodes, Beijing, as a national pioneer in artificial intelligence innovation and application, should continue to rely on judicial precedents to refine the legal rules between data rights confirmation, data authorisation and algorithm black box cracking, so as to provide a more mature "Beijing experience" for national digital economy legislation.
3. Continuous construction of a preferred location for international justice: The Beijing Intellectual Property Court should continue to leverage its professional advantages in the fields of foreign-related patents, antitrust and standard-essential patents, and deepen the principle of equal protection for Chinese and foreign parties. By improving the technical investigator system and the international judicial assistance mechanism, the voice and credibility of China's judiciary in the international high-tech industry rules game will be further enhanced.
Across time and space, Beijing has not only witnessed the entire process of China's intellectual property system from scratch, from germination to prosperity, but also with its profound historical heritage, open international vision and sophisticated legal wisdom, it has continuously exported to the world the Eastern power of stimulating innovation and protecting intellectual labor.
Works Cited
1. The past and present life of Beijing’s old restaurant [3] \-China Communist Party News Network, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2013/1028/c83083-23346345-3.html
2. Bianyifang and Quanjude--New Works \- Chinese Writers Network, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://www.chinawriter.com.cn/n1/2017/0504/c404019-29253607.html
3. Two "Tong Ren Tang" companies are suing again. How should the trademarks of "time-honored brands" be protected? | Column \- Beijing News, accessed April 28, 2026, https://m.bjnews.com.cn/detail/162960871514745.html
4. The "Tongrentang" trademark dispute resumes, Beijing Tongrentang sues Tianjin Tongrentang \- Jiemian News, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.jiemian.com/article/6505199.html
5. Today in the History of Intellectual Property - Text \- Jijia, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.unitalen.net/zhouxun2/zhouxun414/zzcq.htm
6. Trademark Law of May 4, 1923 \- Jijia Intellectual Property Official Website, accessed on April 28, 2026, [https://www.unitalen.net/html/report/17031479-1.htm](https://www.uni
talen.net/html/report/17031479-1.htm)
7. Trademark Law of May 4, 1923 \- Jijia Intellectual Property Official Website, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.unitalen.net/html/report/18061833-1.htm
8. Research - Online Learning - Wuxi Museum, accessed April 28, 2026, [https://www.wxmuseum.cn/Wap/News/Details/880603a6-b732-4635-859c-f72789bc5174] (https://www.wxmuseum.cn/Wap/News/Details/880603a6-b732-4635-859c-f72789bc5174)
9. Thousands of pairs of time-honored brands have been repeatedly infringed, and only one pair of "Neilian Sheng" is genuine (picture) \- People's Daily Online, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://culture.people.com.cn/n/2014/1016/c22219-25847696.html
10. The authenticity has not yet been determined. Xisi Baozi Shop recruits "Li Gui" again \-Beijing Business Daily, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://m.bbtnews.com.cn/index.php?m\_redirect\_url=/2019/0917/319663.shtml
11. Qingfeng Baozi, a time-honored brand in trademark protection dilemma, only received 50,000 yuan in compensation for three years of defending its rights \-China Economic Net, accessed on April 28, 2026, [http://www.ce.cn/cysc/sp/info/201611/23/t20161123\_18053638.shtml](http://www.ce.cn/cysc/sp/info/201611/23
/t20161123_18053638.shtml)
12. Judicial protection polishes time-honored “golden business cards” \-Beijing Municipal People’s Government, accessed April 28, 2026, http://www.beijing.gov.cn/renwen/sy/whkb/202204/t20220429\_2696489.html
13. The protection of time-honored intellectual property has been changed and the IP has been actively escorted out of the circle \-Beijing Business Daily, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.bbtnews.com.cn/2026/0211/584958.shtml
14. Hu Guohua displays the first invention patent application certificate \-Guangming.com, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://news.gmw.cn/2018-12/12/content\_32151126.htm
15. Astronaut wins my country’s No. 1 invention patent, accessed on April 28, 2026, [https://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/n6758844/n6760209/n6760215/c6809215/content.html] (https://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/n6758844/n6760209/n6760215/c6809215/content.html)
16. Inventor of New China’s “No. 1 Patent” | Hu Guohua, accessed on April 28, 2026, [https://www.mmcs.org.cn/xwz/kxjrl/art/2025/art\_535601cec8a5456fa54d78f071a009 8e.html](https://www.mmcs.org.cn/xwz/kxjrl/art/2025/art_535601cec8a5456fa54d78f0
71a0098e.html)
17. The Intellectual Property Publicity Week of the Beijing Intellectual Property Office has begun, and I will take you to review the knowledge of Beijing..., accessed on April 28, 2026, https://zscqj.beijing.gov.cn/zscqj/zwgk/xwdt/zscqj\_603708/index.html
18. A family of 4, 35 patents - the story of Beijing’s “House of Invention” \- Xinhuanet, accessed April 28, 2026, http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-05/22/c\_1124529815.htm
19. Copyright infringement case involving the Walt Disney Company of the United States against Beijing Publishing House and others \- Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/bb3d5da308a29c976cde19af624be8.html
20. Accessed January 1, 1970, https://www.sohu.com/a/229040149\_100000787
21. Application for retrial by Zhang Wei, Zhang Hongyue, and Beijing Clay Figure Zhang Art Development Co., Ltd., accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.cpahkltd.com/show-100352.html
22. [Legal Daily] Associate Professor Meng Qiang of our institute was interviewed by reporters on the judgment of writer Mo Yan’s moral rights lawsuit. The visit was on April 28, 2026, [https://law.bit.edu.c
n/old/xwdt/b150413.htm](https://law.bit.edu.cn/old/xwdt/b150413.htm)
23. Beijing Intellectual Property Court has concluded more than 110,000 cases in 7 years \- China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, accessed April 28, 2026, https://www.ccpit.org/a/20211119/2021111938p8.html
24. The Beijing High Court released the top ten judicial protection cases of intellectual property rights and trademark authorisation and confirmation in 2024..., accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.cpahkltd.com/show-105586.html
25. April 26 Special | Beijing Intellectual Property Court's 2024 Annual Case Release, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.zhichanli.com/p/1889710168