A Century of Intellectual Property in Shanghai

Introduction: The evolution history of Shanghai’s intellectual property as a mirror of the times

The intellectual property system is not only the core pillar of the modern economic system and innovation-driven strategy, but also a mirror of the times that reflects a country or region’s scientific and technological progress, the evolution of business civilization, and the changes in the rule of law system. As the absolute birthplace of China's modern industry and commerce and an important hub for global resource allocation, Shanghai's intellectual property development history is not only a history of transplantation and changes of legal provisions, but also a grand epic intertwined with the rise of national capital, the game of national sovereignty and extraterritoriality, the transformation of systems and mechanisms, and the transformation of cutting-edge digital technologies.

Throughout history, from the struggle between Chinese and foreign capital for copyright and translation rights in the Judiciary Office in the early 20th century, to the heavy technological challenges and the accumulation of time-honored national brands under the national system in the era of planned economy; from the awakening of rights of local brands in the wave of market economy after the reform and opening up and the difficult administrative rights confirmation struggle, to the judicial response to cutting-edge technological challenges such as artificial intelligence generation and synthesis algorithms and game cross-platform plagiarism in the era of digitalization and globalization, Shanghai has always been at the forefront of the exploration of China's intellectual property rules and institutional construction. This report aims to span a century of historical time and space, and explore the legal logic, business wisdom and metaphors of the times hidden behind specific cases through an in-depth analysis of several landmark intellectual property events, administrative rulings and typical judicial precedents that occurred in Shanghai. Through a systematic review of historical archives, judicial decisions, and business evolution paths, this report will outline a panoramic view of Shanghai's intellectual property protection from "passive involvement" to "active construction" and from "following application" to "rules leading."

Commercial Competition and Sovereignty Game in the Concession Era: Judicial Enlightenment of Early Intellectual Property Rights

At the beginning of the 20th century, Shanghai, as the largest metropolis and treaty port in the Far East, brought together huge amounts of capital, advanced technology and diverse cultures from the East and West. During this special historical period, the modern concept of intellectual property was forcibly introduced into China along with the expansion of international trade and unequal treaties. Shanghai not only became a distribution centre for various new publications, industrial products and trademarks, but also naturally became the birthplace of early intellectual property disputes. Cases from this period often had strong nationalist overtones and the imprint of conflicts between Chinese and foreign jurisdictions unique to semi-colonial societies.

Early rights protection for commercial defamation and unfair competition: The Commercial Press v. Zhonghua Book Company case in 1919

In 1919, a "business war" and legal dispute broke out in Shanghai between the two giants in China's modern publishing history, the Commercial Press and the Zhonghua Book Company. Although this case appears to be reputational infringement and commercial defamation, its essence is unfair competition caused by the competition for textbook market share in the early cultural publishing market. It is an early extension of the concept of intellectual property protection in the field of commercial reputation 1 .

Lu Feikui, the founder of Zhonghua Book Company, was a senior employee of the Commercial Press and held important positions such as the director of the publishing department. When his career was at its peak, he pulled some of his staff away to start a new business and founded Zhonghua Book Company in 1912. Since then, the two organizations have launched a fierce commercial competition. 1. In the spring of 1919, Zhonghua Book Company published the book "Japanese Questions in China", and in promoting the book and newspaper advertisements, it deliberately and frequently mentioned the information that the Commercial Press had Japanese shares. 1 Against the backdrop of the surging anti-imperialist and patriotic sentiments of the May 4th Movement, this business strategy with strong political metaphors accurately hit the social pain points at the time. Teachers and students from schools across the country wrote letters to the Commercial Press to severely criticize it. Some schools even issued an ultimatum, threatening to completely refuse to use commercial edition textbooks if the Japanese stocks were not withdrawn. As a result, the Commercial Press's book circulation dropped sharply that year and suffered extremely heavy economic losses. 1

Faced with a life-and-death business crisis, the Commercial Press demonstrated its mature awareness of corporate crisis public relations and legal rights protection. Although the Commercial Press did own 381,000 yuan of Japanese-owned shares in the early days, these shares were fully recovered on January 6, 1914 at a huge price of more than 550,000 yuan in foreign silver, and the company was registered and issued a licence with the Beijing Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce 1. The Commercial Press first posted a reward of 1,000 yuan in newspapers such as "Shen Shen" for clues to the author of the article, and then issued a "Get to the Bottom" statement to clarify the facts, and tried to invite Shi Liangcai, the boss of "Shen Shen", to mediate. 1 After the mediation failed, the Commercial Press hired the famous lawyer Ding Rong in December 1919 and took him to court, accusing the defendant of intentionally causing hatred among the Chinese people, sabotaging business, and damaging reputation, and formally demanded compensation of 10,000 yuan. During the court debate, Zhang Yuanji, director of the Commercial Press, clearly pointed out that the defendant manager Lu Feikui once held 30 shares (10 shares were saved at the time) and was fully aware of the internal resolution to withdraw Japanese shares. His behaviour constituted an extremely obvious subjective and malicious slander 1.

This case profoundly reveals that in the era of lack of modern Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the protection of business reputation can only rely on the traditional reputation infringement litigation mechanism. At the same time, it also shows that intellectual property rights and business competition are often closely linked to the macro-political climate. Business entities have learned to use modern litigation strategies such as hiring professional lawyers and using media resources to defend their intangible assets.

The violent collision between international treaties and judicial sovereignty: the 1923 "Webster Collegiate Dictionary" translation infringement case

If the case of The Commercial Press v. Zhonghua Book Company was a civil war for local cultural capital, then the copyright case of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary in Chinese and English in 1923 was a classic historical slice of Shanghai as an international commercial port in the transnational intellectual property game. 2

In 1923, the Commercial Press translated and published this huge dual-interpretation dictionary. When it was about to be fully released, it suddenly received an official document from the Shanghai Public Settlement Judiciary (a special judicial agency responsible for handling related foreign affairs). Gongjie stated that it received a complaint from Kress, the representative of the American Milin Company in Shanghai, accusing the Commercial Press of infringing upon the publishing rights and trademark rights of Milin Company, and issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the sale of the dictionary until the case is heard. 2 Faced with strong transnational capital and external judicial pressure, the Commercial Press quickly hired two famous barristers, Ding Rong and Liming. The Shanghai Book Industry Chamber of Commerce also quickly hired lawyer Luo Luo to join the defence because this matter related to the great interests of the national book industry and education. 2

The core focus of the court debate focused on the precise interpretation of the first clause of the "Sino-US Renewal of Commerce and Shipping Treaty" in the 29th year of the reign of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty (1903). The treaty stipulates that any "books, maps, prints, and engravings specially prepared for the use of the Chinese people" shall be protected by the Chinese government for ten years; however, the treaty also contains an extremely critical exemption clause: "Whatever books and maps are written by Americans, the Chinese may translate them into Chinese at their own discretion, publish and sell them." 2 The Chinese legal team firmly adhered to the restrictive legal qualifier "exclusively for the use of the Chinese people" and effectively argued that the dictionary was essentially a reference book compiled for American universities and was not specially prepared for the Chinese. Therefore, Chinese citizens fully enjoy the legal right to translation and publication and did not violate international treaties 2.

This case not only demonstrated superb treaty interpretation in terms of legal theory, but also exposed the deep rift between jurisdiction and judicial sovereignty at the court hearing. During the interrogations on June 28 and July 6, Chinese Counselor Lu Zhongliang and U.S. Consul in Shanghai Almen had serious disagreements on whether to lift the embargo order. Lu Zhongliang even publicly announced in court: "The U.S. juror announced the order, and this judge did not agree with it." 2 This is not only an international copyright dispute, but also a feat of Chinese legal elites taking advantage of loopholes in the treaty text to defend their country’s cultural dissemination rights within the semi-colonial judicial framework.

Dimensions of dispute	1919 Commercial Press v. Zhonghua Book Company case	1923 "Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" copyright dispute case
Core of Conflict	Commercial denigration and unfair competition among local peers	Translation rights and copyright boundaries between transnational publishing capital and local institutions
Legal Sources	Traditional civil infringement, damage to reputation, loss of business reputation	1903 "Renewal of the Treaty on Commerce and Shipping between China and the United States" and exceptions to international law
Trial Body	China’s local judicial system	Shanghai Public Settlement Joint Trial (co-trial by Chinese and foreign judges, embodying extraterritorial jurisdiction)
Macro Background	The nationalist sentiments inspired by the "May Fourth Movement" and the boycott of Japanese goods	The imposition of intellectual property rights on China by European and American powers and China's urgent need for translation enlightenment
Resistance Strategy	Publication of statements in newspapers, mediation by industry tycoons, resorting to law to seek huge compensation	Cut-out explanations of treaty restrictions, joint defence by multiple lawyers, and use of conflicts between Chinese and foreign judges

Technical collectivism and the accumulation of time-honored brands in the era of planned economy

With the founding of New China, Shanghai's economic and legal systems have undergone fundamental reshaping. Under the decades-long planned economic system, the private intellectual property system in the modern sense (such as the exclusive monopoly of patent rights) has been temporarily shelved, and has been replaced by a technological invention reward system that is unifiedly planned and tackled by the state, as well as a time-honored brand system endorsed by national credit. Although there was a lack of intellectual property transactions in the context of a market economy during this period, it gave birth to extremely profound industrial technology accumulation and national brand genes for Shanghai and even the country.

The industrial miracle of self-reliance and shared ownership of technology: the birth of the 10,000-ton hydraulic press in 1962

In the early days of the founding of New China, the national strategy of giving priority to the development of heavy industry was established. However, the key equipment conditions and core technical capabilities required for development were seriously insufficient. Against the severe background of Western technology blockade, Shanghai has undertaken the historical mission of conquering the country's heavy machinery manufacturing industry. June 22, 1962, is a day recorded in the history of Chinese industry. China's first 12,000-ton free forging hydraulic press, designed and manufactured by Shen Hong and his team in Shanghai, was completed and officially put into production 3.

The world's first 10,000-ton hydraulic press was born in 1893. In the absence of foreign technical drawings, Chinese engineers relied on extraordinary wisdom and tenacity to conduct in-depth inspections at heavy machine factories in Qiqihar, Shenyang, Taiyuan and other places to understand the performance and structural principles of hydraulic press equipment. They also collected massive fragmented data from foreign professional journals for reverse engineering and redesign 3. In that era of scarcity of materials and energy, this 10,000-ton hydraulic press was more than just a machine. The huge technical secrets, engineering design drawings and manufacturing processes it contained essentially constituted the country’s core intellectual property assets. 3 Its completion not only demonstrated the self-reliance and hard-working spirit of Chinese industrial workers, but also became a vivid industrial memory in the hearts of the Chinese people. It also attracted guests from more than 40 countries to visit China in the 1960s. American journalist Edgar Snow also made the shocking scene of its forged steel ingot into a movie, announcing to the world the independence of China's industrial technology. 3

The baptism of time and modern renewal of traditional trademarks: Butterfly sewing machine and White Rabbit toffee

In the field of light industry, Shanghai has given birth to a number of iconic brands that carry the memories of generations. During the planned economy period, the main function of trademarks was not to distinguish the source of market competition, but as a code for planned allocation and an endorsement of product quality. However, it is this long-term persistence in quality that has enabled these brands to become priceless intangible intellectual property assets after turning to the market economy.

As an international national brand with a century-old history, "Butterfly" sewing machine's development history has been recorded in detail in many historical documents such as "Shanghai General Chronicles", "Xuhui District Chronicles", "Shanghai Light Industry Chronicles", and "Longhua Town Chronicles" 4. Faced with the impact of the modern garment industry, Butterfly Brand has not gone extinct, but has deeply integrated intellectual property strategy and product innovation. By combining traditional design concepts with modern aesthetics, the "three combinations" of functionality, aesthetics and emotion are achieved, successfully interpreting the innovative spirit of "Made in Shanghai", the great city's business card, and completing the transformation of a time-honored brand 4.

Similarly, the "White Rabbit" toffee with a history of more than 40 years and cumulative sales of nearly 3 billion yuan was once presented to US President Richard Nixon as a national gift by Premier Zhou Enlai and has been exported to more than 40 countries and regions. 5 But today, with the iteration of consumer groups, White Rabbit faces the severe challenge of brand aging. The Shanghai Huangpu District CPPCC and other institutions have drawn profound conclusions through extensive research: the survival of Shanghai's time-honored brands lies in the R&D investment in intellectual property rights and awareness of innovation, and those who remain deficient will inevitably face the fate of elimination 5. To this end, the White Rabbit brand spent nearly three years conducting surveys covering more than 10,000 consumers in 7 provinces and cities, developed its own core technology, and launched innovative products that reduce sweetness and increase milk content5. In addition, White Rabbit has further licensed and derived the potential of its registered trademarks across industries, such as cross-industry cooperation with Shanghai Jahwa to launch toffee-flavored lip balm, cross-industry cooperation with Guangming Three-Color Cup and Lian Coffee, etc. These new paths for the commercialization of intellectual property have enabled time-honored brands to successfully connect to online platforms, and have explored the revitalization rules of integrating time-honored products with contemporary people's lifestyles in the new era 5. Members of the CPPCC even pointed out that the property rights incentive mechanism of operator shareholding and employee shareholding is an important institutional guarantee for the continued vitality of these time-honored enterprises. 5

Brand categories	History and brand status	Challenges of the times	Intellectual property rights and business innovation strategies
Butterfly Sewing Machine 4	A world-renowned century-old national brand, listed in "Shanghai General Chronicle" and other documents	The modern garment industry has replaced the demand for home sewing and has dropped sharply	Integrate traditional design and promote a product matrix that combines functionality, aesthetics, and emotion
White Rabbit Milk Candy 5	More than 40 years of history, former national gift, cumulative sales of 3 billion yuan, exported to more than 40 countries	Consumer group iteration, healthy diet concept (anti-sugar) impact	3 years of research and development of sugar-lowering and milk-reducing technology; cross-border trademark licensing (American and Canadian lip balm, etc.)

Struggle to confirm rights and reconstruct the judicial system under the wave of market economy

Entering the 21st century, with the comprehensive deepening of the market economy, the commercial moat value of intangible assets such as trademarks and patents has become increasingly prominent. The weak awareness of brand protection in the early days and the problems left over from history have forced many local Shanghai companies to face protracted IP rights confirmation and rights protection litigation in the process of development and growth. At the same time, the judicial specialization reform at the national level has also profoundly reshaped Shanghai's intellectual property protection environment.

Nine-year rights confirmation marathon: "Shanghai Story" trademark dispute case

The "Shanghai Story" trademark dispute series is a textbook classic case in which local companies finally regained and stabilized their core brand assets through extremely complex administrative rights confirmation and civil litigation. 6 The "Shanghai Story" brand was founded by Shanghai Story Silk Development Co., Ltd. in early 2003. Its design concept integrates unique Shanghai culture and fashion colors, focusing on the production of fashionable scarves, silk scarves and other silk fabrics 6. However, due to early delays in applying for trademark registration, the brand encountered a chaotic situation in which franchisees were independent, independent, and even became competitors 6 .

In order to completely solve this intellectual property time bomb, Shanghai Story Company officially entrusted a professional law firm (King & Wood Mallesons) in 2011 to initiate the trademark registration and rights protection procedures for "Shanghai Story" 6. Since then, the two parties have launched a nine-year legal battle over the "Shanghai Story" trademark No. 10087133, which was first applied by Shanghai Story Company, and the later registered trademark No. 12676248, "Shanghai Story STORY OF shanghai and Pictures" by Hangzhou Lingjueding Clothing Co., Ltd. 6. In this battle, Hangzhou Lingjueding Company strongly invoked the provisions of Article 59 of the Trademark Law on "prior use", claiming that its use since 2011 has formed the objective fact that two trademarks coexist in the market, trying to solidify the rationality of its registration 6.

Shanghai Story Company, on the other hand, was uncompromising. Based on the solid facts of its prior use and prior application, and in accordance with Article 31 of the Trademark Law, it claimed that the disputed trademark and the cited trademark constituted serious confusion, and requested the State Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the disputed trademark of Hangzhou Lingjueding6. After more than ten comprehensive civil lawsuits (including unfair competition cases and a series of civil contract disputes) and administrative litigation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court finally made a first-instance judgment and rejected the invalidation request for Shanghai Story’s core trademark. The State Intellectual Property Office also declared the other party’s trademark similar to a famous brand to be invalid. 6 After strong legal deterrence and reasonable business arrangements, Hangzhou Lingjueding finally gave up its unreasonable demands and reached a settlement 6. This case profoundly demonstrates that if a company neglects intellectual property compliance in the early stages of establishment, it will pay an extremely high price in time and capital. However, it also demonstrates the practical wisdom of mature companies that by resolutely safeguarding their rights and supplementing them with commercial negotiations, they can eventually obtain a solid rights foundation at a reasonable cost.

Reconstruction of the judicial system in 2014: National macro picture and the birth of specialized courts

At the same time as the "Shanghai Story" case was advancing anxiously, China's intellectual property judicial system was undergoing historic changes. At the end of 2014, three major intellectual property courts in Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou were established one after another, marking the entry into a new era of highly professionalization of intellectual property protection in China. From the "50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2014" published by the Supreme People's Court, we can clearly see the complex situation and huge source of cases faced by judicial trials at that time 7 .

Typical cases this year covered all areas of intellectual property. In terms of patent disputes, the Supreme People's Court heard the invention patent infringement case between Zhang Jingting and Hengshui Ziyahe Company, the infringement case between Fan Junjie and Yichen Company, and the Guangdong Yajie Hardware and Luoyang Chennuo Electric cases involving design patents, etc. 7 . In the field of copyright, the cases of Zhang Xiaoyan v. Lei Xianhe and Shandong Book Lovers Audio and Video Books, Huagai Creative v. Harbin Zhenglin Software, and Wang Juxian v. Shaoxing Municipal Water Conservancy Bureau all demonstrate the judiciary’s high-pressure unification of copyright confirmation standards 8 . In addition, Apple sued Maijia for infringement of information network dissemination rights, and Guangzhou NetEase Computer Systems Co., Ltd. sued Beijing Century Hetu Software Technology Co., Ltd. for comprehensive copyright, trademark and unfair competition disputes, revealing the frequent chaos in the Internet and gaming industry 8 . In the field of criminal crackdowns, the Guangdong Court heard the case of Xie Ruzhou and others for counterfeiting registered trademarks, and the Guiyang Court heard the case of Ye Jundong and others for infringement of trade secrets, demonstrating the tough stance of criminal law as the last line of defence for intellectual property protection7. In this macro-picture of a surge in the number of cases across the country and increasingly complex forms of infringement, the establishment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court carries the important national mission of exploring high-standard adjudication rules.

Towards high-standard protection on the international stage: the global influence of Shanghai judicial adjudication

With the mature operation of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, its judicial vision has rapidly expanded to a global scale. When dealing with intellectual property disputes involving multinational enterprises, Shanghai's judicial organs and administrative departments adhere to the principle of equal protection, which not only wins widespread praise from the international community, but also substantially enhances the international image of Shanghai and even China as a highland for a law-based business environment.

Top protection for cross-category well-known trademarks: Legal insights into the “Peppa Pig” rights protection case

In a landmark case heard by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and attracting widespread international attention, the plaintiff Entertainment One UK Co., Ltd. (the rights holder of the "Peppa Pig" cartoon) sued the defendant Chen Moumou and Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. (the operator of the Pinduoduo platform) for trademark infringement9.

The core legal challenge in this case is the cross-class protection of trademarks. The plaintiff's "Peppa Pig" registered trademark was originally approved for use on Class 9 goods (cartoons, downloadable electronic publications, etc.), while the allegedly infringing product "Creative Cartoon Peppa Pig LED Desk Lamp" belongs to Class 11 (Lamps) 9. According to the principles of the Trademark Law, the two are neither identical or similar goods, nor related goods. Therefore, the only legal way to stop the defendant's infringement across categories is to determine that the registered trademark "Peppa Pig" involved in the case has reached the standard of a "well-known trademark"9.

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court conducted a meticulous review of the massive evidence submitted by the plaintiff. Evidence shows that since the "Peppa Pig" cartoon was produced in 2003 and broadcast on CCTV Children's Channel and major video platforms such as iQiyi and Tencent, it has become popular all over the world, and its cumulative broadcast volume continues to be at the top of the list. The plaintiff has also authorised derivative rights to 17 domestic companies, covering many fields such as electronics, toys, and clothing, and has conducted extensive and sustained publicity in many media across the country 9. Based on this, the court legally determined that the trademark enjoys high popularity and reputation in cartoons and electronic publications, and meets the conditions for a well-known trademark 9. The court found that defendant Chen’s defence that he had only sold three products could not exempt him from infringement liability for copying and imitating the plaintiff’s well-known trademark on the online store page and product packaging, and ultimately ordered him to compensate RMB 30,000 for economic losses and reasonable expenses as appropriate9. At the same time, the court accurately applied the "safe harbor principle" of online platforms. Since Xunmeng Company had taken measures to ban the links involved in the case and there was no evidence of joint infringement, it ruled that it would not bear joint and several liability9.

The verdict had far-reaching international consequences. After the case came into effect, CT Wood, the Consul General of the British Consulate General in Shanghai, personally wrote to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court to express his gratitude to the court for its fairness and justice, and emphasized that this is a solid foundation for promoting prosperous economic and trade exchanges between China and the UK and other world economies 10. The executive vice president of the plaintiff company also sent a letter of thanks, praising the judge for his thorough review of details, which greatly protected the legitimate rights and interests of foreign-invested enterprises operating in China, and played a solid legal popularization and warning role10.

Administrative expedited protection of pharmaceutical patents: Shionogi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Markush Claim Case

In the high-tech field of medicine, Shanghai's administrative law enforcement departments also demonstrate extremely high professionalism and law enforcement efficiency. At the end of 2021, Japan's Shionogi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed a request for administrative ruling with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Office for the invention patent "Prodrugs of Substituted Polycyclic Carbamoylpyridone Derivatives" for which it has a legal and valid patent (Patent No.: ZL201180056716.8) 12.

The plaintiff accused Shanghai Xianghui Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. of publicly promising to sell and selling the allegedly infringing product "mabaloxavir" that falls within the scope of protection of claims 1-6 of the patent involved on its official website and the specialized chemical product platform Chemicalbook website without permission. 12 Although the respondent argued that it had no knowledge and had stopped selling, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Office quickly issued an administrative ruling within just 4 months (April 1, 2022) after the case was filed, clearly ordering the respondent to immediately stop the infringement12. This case was highly praised by experts because it not only reflected the equal treatment of multinational and foreign-funded pharmaceutical companies and the smooth access to fast rights protection channels, but also provided a highly instructive general idea for the infringement comparison of extremely complex "Markush claims" in chemical invention patents12.

Severe punishment of infringement and diverse governance: a typical picture of intellectual property protection in 2024

As the country continues to increase its efforts to protect intellectual property rights, Shanghai has established a strict protection network across the entire chain in areas such as criminal crackdowns, trade secret protection, and countering the abuse of intellectual property rights. From the "Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection in Shanghai in 2024" released by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Joint Conference Office, we can intuitively feel the great improvement in legal deterrence 13.

Smashing the carnival of intellectual property crimes: Lego criminal case and sky-high fines

Among the top ten cases announced in 2024, the top one is the "crime of infringement of the copyright of Lego assembly building block toys by a Shantou Technology Industrial Co., Ltd., Chen Moujia and others" 13. This is a serious case of counterfeiting and counterfeiting with extremely large scale and clear division of labor. For more than six years from January 2016 to August 2022, the defendant unit privately set up a complete industrial chain such as design department, engineering department, production department, and sales department without the authorisation of the Lego company. By purchasing authentic Lego products for stripping, counting, molding, injection molding, pad printing, etc., they copied the outer packaging, instructions, and building block particles of the Lego building toy in a 1:1 manner, and branded it with its own logo for large-scale frantic selling. 13

After investigation by the Huangpu Branch of the Public Security Bureau, prosecution by the Procuratorate, and final review by the court, the illegal business amount discovered in this case was as high as a shocking 1.1 billion yuan, making it the largest copyright infringement case involving the subject matter in the country 13. The judicial authorities showed no mercy. The main criminals Chen A and Chen B were sentenced to nine years and eight years in prison respectively, and the units involved were fined up to 600 million yuan in accordance with the law. 13 This judgment not only completely deprives criminals of their ability to commit infringement again economically, but also creates an extremely strong warning effect on the entire society to protect originality and deter piracy.

Collaborative governance mechanism covering all fields

In addition to the Lego case, other typical cases in 2024 also demonstrate the three-dimensional characteristics of Shanghai’s intellectual property protection 13:

1. Foreign-owned brand trademark and reputation protection: In a series of cases involving a Shanghai automobile service company and others infringing on the exclusive rights to the registered trademark "Rolls-Royce" and causing commercial confusion, the court effectively cracked down on counterfeiting of high-end automobile service brands and effectively protected the legitimate rights and interests of foreign-owned enterprises in Shanghai.
2. Crack down on the counterfeiting industry chain at the source: In the series of cases involving Fan Moumou's production and sale of counterfeit Moutai "special liquor", the procuratorate not only cracked down on terminal sales, but also traced the source of the counterfeiting and counterfeiting industry chain to carry out devastating attacks, effectively rectifying the chaos of bad money driving out good money in the famous wine market.
3. Business secrets and core technology protection: The invention patent infringement dispute case of "Method for preparing dialkyl phosphinate" and the case of trade secret infringement by an Anhui polylactic acid Co., Ltd. demonstrate the in-depth judicial protection of the company's core research and development results.
4. Regulating Intellectual Property Abuse: In the case of Xu Moumou suing Chen Moumou and the e-commerce platform for damage liability disputes due to malicious filing of intellectual property litigation, the court strongly deterred the improper behaviour of exploiting loopholes in the rules to extort legitimate operators by punishing malicious litigants. This reflects the balanced philosophy that the intellectual property system must be strictly protected while also preventing abuse.
5. Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade Security: Shanghai Customs seized the case of exported solar panels that infringed on trademark rights, demonstrating the customs' gatekeeper role in border protection and effectively safeguarding the international reputation of "Made in China" in overseas markets.
6. Pan-Internet Ecological Governance: Cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition in the real estate field, cases of unfair competition in online assessments, cases of unfair competition in ticket-grabbing software, and cases of online dissemination of music works by a cultural communication company, all of which responded to the need to confirm intellectual property rights under new business models in an all-round way.

Classification of key typical cases in Shanghai in 2024	Representative cases	Legal principles involved and core warning significance
Super large-scale criminal copyright crime	The case of a Shantou technology company replicating Lego bricks 13	1:1 replica piracy, illegal business revenue of 1.1 billion; the principal criminal was sentenced to 9 years in prison and a sky-high fine of 600 million yuan, completely depriving him of the ability to re-offend
Curbing the Abuse of Rights and Malicious Litigation	Xu Moumou’s case of dispute over liability for damages due to malicious filing of intellectual property litigation 13	Sanctions the malicious behaviour of using intellectual property litigation as a tool to suppress business and blackmail, and maintain the dignity of the rule of law
Cross-border trade and customs border protection	Case of seizure of exported solar panels infringing trademark rights 13	Combating export infringement, maintaining the reputation of "Made in China" and the security of intellectual property rights in the international supply chain
Food Safety and Anti-Counterfeiting in the Whole Chain	A series of cases involving Fan Moumou’s production and sale of counterfeit Moutai “Special Liquor” 13	Procuratorate digs deep into the source of the counterfeiting chain, conducts cross-regional joint crackdowns, and purifies the high-end consumer market

New Productivity Protection under Digital Transformation: Rule Construction of Algorithms and Digital Assets

Entering the third decade of the 21st century, with the explosive evolution of big data, cloud computing, algorithm recommendation, artificial intelligence (AI), and especially deep synthesis technology, the object form and infringement methods of intellectual property have undergone disruptive changes. The focus of intellectual property cases has shifted from traditional tangible media entities (such as printed books, sewing machines, and plastic building blocks) to intangible data flows, virtual spaces, game rule structures, and code algorithms. In this new territory full of unknowns, Shanghai’s judicial practice has once again demonstrated its keen foresight and rule-making capabilities 16 .

Establish the legal boundaries of algorithmic synthesis and “AI face-changing”

Under the wave of generative artificial intelligence (AIGC), the double-edged sword effect of technology is most vividly demonstrated in the field of intellectual property. In a typical dispute over the application of generative synthesis algorithms heard in the first instance of the Shanghai Jiading District People’s Court, the plaintiff Chen’s short video containing the fruits of his own labour suffered high-tech infringement16. The defendant, Shanghai Yimou Network Technology Co., Ltd., used the "Xou Yan" applet operated by it to use AI algorithms to partially replace and synthesize Chen's original video of the face, and used this as a selling point for the "AI face-changing" function. It provided a platform, materials and underlying technology for a large number of users to generate new videos through face-changing methods under any selected time and space conditions for commercial gain 16.

During the court hearing of this case, a number of industry landmark arbitration rules were established. The first is to confirm the originality of the original work. The court held that Chen’s original video reflected original choices and arrangements in terms of content arrangement, scene selection and shooting angle, and was undoubtedly an audiovisual work protected by the Copyright Law 16 . Secondly, in response to the defendant's extremely typical "technological neutrality" and "fair use" defenses, the court made a far-reaching legal denial. The court clearly pointed out that the defendant's behaviour of providing an AI face-changing platform for profit resulted in the generated video being substantially similar to the original video. This behaviour neither produced new ideological expressions of the original work (it did not constitute an original adaptation), nor did it comply with the "fair use" exemption clause 16 for specific purposes such as personal study and research or current news reporting.

The most critical thing is that the court completely rejected the defence logic of "technological neutrality" as a safe haven for infringement, determined that this behaviour seriously infringed on the plaintiff's rights to information network dissemination of works, and ordered the defendant to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 7,500 yuan16. Not only that, the Jiading Court also used active judicial governance tools to issue judicial suggestions to the company on the use of algorithm technology to provide network services, prompting it to actively cooperate in deleting infringing videos, perform algorithm filing procedures, and make standardized business commitments during litigation. 16 This judgment balances the core demands of the innovative development of AI technology and the protection of the rights of content creators, clarifies the legal boundaries of the application of generative artificial intelligence technology, and sends a clear signal to the entire industry: those who use AI technology to provide network services must bear reasonable obligations of care, and it is strictly prohibited to use algorithm black boxes and technical advantages to infringe on the copyrights of others.

Game "skin reskin" infringement and deep penetration protection of digital core assets

In the digital culture and entertainment industry, the underlying rules and logical structure constitute the core value of game products, but their protection has long faced the dilemma of blurred legal boundaries. In the war strategy simulation game (SLG) infringement case of "So-and-so Awakening" v. "Such-and-Such Official", the vicious "skin-changing and plagiarism" chaos in the industry was revealed 16. "So-and-So Awakening" was jointly developed and operated by Chengdu Lemou Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Limou Network Technology Co., Ltd., which invested huge R&D costs; and the WeChat mini-program game "So-and-so Official" developed and operated by Shenzhen Jiumou Interactive Technology and Hainan Fanmou Technology has made a huge revenue of about 18.9 million yuan in less than one and a half years of operation (from December 2020 to March 2022) (a net gain of about 12.5 million yuan after deducting channel fees) 16. This type of reskinned games often make superficial modifications to the art materials to avoid traditional picture copyright review, but completely steals its underlying numerical system, economic model and rule structure (as mentioned in the typical case in 2024 of the "Douluo Dalu: Awakening of Spirits" game rule infringement case 13).

When dealing with such digital intellectual property disputes involving Shanghai-based companies, Shanghai and relevant high courts have gradually broken through the rigid restrictions of the "dichotomy between ideas and expressions" in traditional copyright law. The judicial ruling confirmed that when the underlying rules, numerical setting system and internal logic chain of a complex game reach a level of sophistication and unique choice, it is no longer just an abstract "idea" but is transformed into a legally protected "expression", which may be directly included in the protection scope of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This deep-penetrating rights confirmation protection mechanism has extremely effectively curbed the industry cancer of low-cost plagiarism and profit-making, and injected strong development confidence into core industries of the digital economy such as games and software.

Conclusion: The grand repercussions of the evolution of intellectual property in the current era

Looking back at the changes in intellectual property rights that have occurred in the hot land of Shanghai for a century, we can clearly identify a historical hidden line and deep logic running through it: Intellectual property rights, as a property rights arrangement and institutional tool, have never been purely technical rules static in a vacuum, but have always resonated with the macroeconomic transformation, national sovereignty games, and underlying technological revolutions.

From the Commercial Press's difficult reputation protection in the context of national survival in 19191 to the barristers' sophisticated counterattack against transnational capital using treaty texts in the 1923 hearings2, it reflects the awakening of modern China to defend the lifeline of local culture in an unequal international system; from the national technological honor and self-reliance spirit carried by the 10,000-ton hydraulic press in 1962 3. To the modern renewal of national brands such as "White Rabbit" and "Butterfly Brand" through time and cross-border integration. 4. It reflects the deep feelings of family and country carried by technological breakthroughs and brand assets in the system changes; from the "Shanghai Story" that took 9 years of struggle to clarify the boundaries of rights. 6. In recent years, to the cross-category top-level protection of "Peppa Pig", the fast administrative protection of pharmaceutical giants' patents, and the astronomical 600 million yuan fine against the Lego piracy industry chain. 9, vividly demonstrates China’s strategic determination and firm determination to establish a modern legal market system and fully integrate into the global high-standard trading system.

In today's judicial exploration of black-box regulation of "AI face-changing" algorithms and digital asset plagiarism adjudication, we should be keenly aware that Shanghai has quietly and firmly transformed from a passive recipient and follower of international intellectual property rules to an active pathfinder and leader of new rules in the digital era. Spanning the vast historical time and space, these case files that occurred on the banks of the Huangpu River reveal to us a profound truth: the most powerful intellectual property protection system not only relies on the deterrence of penalties and thorough legislation, but is also deeply rooted in openness and tolerance for every underlying technological change, a keen insight into the business ethics of fair competition, and an unremitting adherence to the rule of law and justice. In the grand narrative of the future digital economy and the competition between major powers in science and technology, continuing to build a more international, professional, and digital intellectual property highland will surely be the core driving force and historical destiny for Shanghai to continue to lead the trend of the times.

Works Cited

1. The business war between "Business" and "China" goes to court--Party History Channel-People's Daily Online, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2013/0516/c85037-21503341.html
2. An international copyright dispute at the beginning of the last century\_China Reading News\_Guangming.com, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.gmw.cn/01ds/2001-04/18/GB/2001%5E347%5E0%5EDS503.htm
3. The first 10,000-ton hydraulic press in New China, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://scei.org.cn/djgz/dqxddfh/kjcxzzlgsp/art/2022/art\_85c111a999d046feaa27afb7cee36301.html
4. Butterfly Sewing Machine: Shanghainese finesse is all inside, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://m.thepaper.cn/baijiahao\_7554765
5. Spring is when thousands of rabbits gallop - Shanghai CPPCC advises time-honored brands to create "new" records, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://www.cppcc.gov.cn/zxww/2020/09/23/ARTI1600824194417384.shtml
6. Progress of the case between the State Intellectual Property Office and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court - the "Shanghai Story" trademark lasted nine years and more than ten disputes, and finally received stable registration

Book Basis, accessed April 28, 2026, [https://www.chinalawinsight.com/2020/12/articles/news/%E5%9B%BD%E7%9F%A5%E5%B1%80%E4%B8%8E%E5%8C%97%E7%9F%A5% E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E6%A1%88%E4%BB%B6%E8%BF%9B%E5%B1%95-%E4%B8%8A%E6%B5%B7%E6%95%85%E4%BA%8B%E5%95%86%E6%A0%87/] (https://www.chinalawinsight.com/2020/12/articles/news/%E5%9B%BD%E7%9F%A5%E5%B1%80%E4%B8%8E%E5%8C%97%E7%9F%A5% E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%E6%A1%88%E4%BB%B6%E8%BF%9B%E5%B1%95-%E4%B8%8A%E6%B5%B7%E6%95%85%E4%BA%8B%E5%95%86%E6%A0%87/)
7. 50 typical intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2014, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://hnsqzy.hncourt.gov.cn/public/detail.php?id=10566
8. Fifty typical intellectual property cases of the Supreme People’s Court in 2014, accessed on April 28, 2026, http://www.cnipr.com/sj/zx/201707/t20170718\_213460.html
9. LED desk lamp uses Peppa Pig logo. Court: Infringement of exclusive rights to registered trademarks. Accessed on April 28, 2026. [https://www.hshfy.sh.cn/shfy/web/xxnr.jsp?pa=aaWQ9MjAyMTIyMzEmeGg9MSZsbWRtPWxtNTE5z](https://www.hshfy.sh.

cn/shfy/web/xxnr.jsp?pa=aaWQ9MjAyMTIyMzEmeGg9MSZsbWRtPWxtNTE5z)
10. Attached Judgment | Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court and Shanghai Intellectual Property Court report on the status of judicial protection of intellectual property rights and typical cases in the past ten years, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.ipeconomy.cn/dongtai/8931.html
11. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court recognized the “Peppa Pig” trademark as a well-known trademark in accordance with the law \-China Intellectual Property Protection Network, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://ipr.mofcom.gov.cn/article/gnxw/sf/zz/zzsb/202103/1960434.html
12. Top ten typical cases of intellectual property protection in Shanghai in 2022, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.cpahkltd.com/show-102212.html
13. The selection of the top ten typical cases of intellectual property protection in Shanghai in 2024 is announced, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://www.cpahkltd.com/show-105578.html
14. The Supreme People’s Court releases the typical intellectual property cases of the People’s Court in 2024, accessed on April 28, 2026, https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4205.html
15. Focus! The top ten typical cases of intellectual property protection in Shanghai in 2024 were announced, accessed on April 28, 2026, [https://sipa.sh.gov.cn/dxal/20250423/f3d3d893b32

e49a7b18e398b77f26eeb.html](https://sipa.sh.gov.cn/dxal/20250423/f3d3d893b32e49a7b18e398b77f26eeb.html)
16. The Supreme People’s Court releases the typical intellectual property cases of the People’s Court in 2024 \-China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, accessed April 28, 2026, https://www.ccpit.org/a/20250422/20250422s7yx.html