Holding the "Jie Rou" trademark and claiming 5 million yuan in damages? Ended up being ordered by the court to pay 100k yuan

A credit-guarantee investment and industrial company holds a “Jie Rou” trademark and files a lawsuit against Zhongshun Jie Rou Paper Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhongshun Jie Rou”), a leading domestic tissue and paper products company, seeking damages of RMB 5 million. What is unexpected is that the court not only dismissed all of its claims, but instead ruled that it compensate the defendant RMB 100k in attorney’s fees. Recently, the First People’s Court of Zhongshan City published the judgment outcome of this case on its official public account.

In 2017, Zhongshan’s X Investment and Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the investment company”) obtained the No. 565278 “Jie Rou” word trademark through the trademark transfer procedure. This trademark is approved for use on products in Class 3 such as “soap, detergents,” but for a long time it has remained dormant, with almost no actual use.

On the other hand, after years of deep cultivation, Zhongshun Jie Rou has long become a well-known leading domestic tissue and paper products enterprise. “Jie Rou” has not only obtained well-known trademark protection in Class 16 for paper goods, but has also built a strong brand recognition among consumers.

Shortly after acquiring the trademark, the investment company moved quickly. On the one hand, it intensively filed registrations of dozens of similar trademarks featuring the “Jie Rou” wording; on the other hand, it closely targeted cross-class products newly expanded by Zhongshun Jie Rou, such as wet wipes and laundry detergent, collecting information including its product packaging and promotional materials. In early 2025, the investment company filed a lawsuit, alleging that Zhongshun Jie Rou used the “Jie Rou” label on products such as “baby wet wipes,” “makeup remover wet wipes,” and “laundry detergent,” constituting an infringement of its exclusive trademark rights in Class 3, and requesting that the company stop using it, publicly apologize, and pay RMB 5 million in compensation.

At the trial, the investment company insisted: “We are the trademark right holders who lawfully acquired the trademark through transfer; the rights are clear and the procedures are legitimate. The other party’s use of ‘Jie Rou’ on non-paper goods easily causes consumer confusion, which clearly constitutes infringement.”

Zhongshun Jie Rou responded just as sharply: “The plaintiff was originally a guarantee company and has never engaged in the production and operation of daily chemical products. It deliberately acquired a dormant trademark and stockpiled large quantities of similar labels; the purpose is to create a conflict of rights and profit through the lawsuit.”

Zhongshun Jie Rou submitted evidence showing that before the investment company acquired the trademark at issue, it had repeatedly attempted to register trademarks containing “Jie Rou” but was rejected; it then took a detour layout by acquiring an ‘old trademark.’ Its actions demonstrate a clear intention to latch on and an improper competitive motive.

Considering that both parties are located in Zhongshan City, the court found that the investment company could not have been unaware of the market influence of the “Jie Rou” brand. Tracing the investment company’s trademark application history shows that, knowing that Zhongshun Jie Rou’s “Jie Rou” trademark in the tissue and paper products field had already achieved very high popularity and even well-known status, it nevertheless acquired, in a manner clearly intended to latch on, the previously registered No. 565278 “Jie Rou” trademark, and then applied to register many other trademarks using the “Jie Rou” wording. The basis on which it obtained the rights cannot be called good faith.

Presiding Judge Feng Suibo, in combination with the emphasis in this case, stated that the court’s ruling does not negate the trademark registration system; instead, it looks through the forms to examine the essence of the rights and the original intent behind exercising them. The adjudication strongly deters conduct such as “riding on a big-name brand” and “taking a free ride.” It is a concrete practice of the court serving high-quality development and optimizing the rule-of-law business environment.

Feng Suibo said that trademarks are not a game token where “you win if you register first.” The legitimacy of rights is not only about whether there is a “certificate,” but also about how they were obtained and how they are used. Rights obtained through malicious acquisition, hoarding, and latching onto goodwill will not be protected by the judiciary. A lawsuit is also not a commercial weapon to suppress competitors. A company must sue with the true intent to protect its rights, not to create obstacles and seek benefits. Instead of spending all its effort trying to ride on a big-name brand, a business would be better off calming down and focusing on building its own brand.

Nanfang+ reporter 郜小平

【Author】 郜小平

【Source】 Nanfang Media Group Nanfang+ client