Foshan Ceramic Free-Riding Trademark Infringement Case — Spoliation Rule Supports Heavy Damages

Court: Foshan Intermediate People's Court (2024)

Facts: A well-known Foshan ceramic group (Company A, an industry leader) owned registered trademark "XX Lisha" in Class 19 for ceramic tiles, which had become a well-known brand through long-term operation. A rock-slab partnership (Company B) and its operator Liu used signs highly similar to "XX Lisha" on its tiles, packaging, and promotional materials, and prominently used similar wording in its trade name, while advertising annual sales targets exceeding 300 million RMB. Company A sued for infringement cessation and 3.2 million RMB in damages. During litigation, the court ordered Company B to produce financial records to calculate infringing profits, but B refused without justification.

Holding:

(1) The accused sign was similar to the plaintiff's registered mark and used on identical goods, likely causing confusion among the relevant public, constituting trademark infringement;

(2) Prominently using similar wording in the trade name violated the principle of good faith and constituted unfair competition;

(3) Applying the spoliation rule: since the defendant refused to provide evidence of infringing profits, the court presumed the plaintiff's claimed damages reasonable and awarded the full 3.2 million RMB.

法槌、放大镜与合同文本(合同审查)

Significance:

· Strengthens judicial protection against trademark free-riding in the ceramics industry, using heavy damages to deter infringement;

· Addresses the pain points of difficult evidence and low compensation in IP disputes, providing reference for similar cases;

· Demonstrates Foshan courts' commitment to protecting IP of local pillar industries and supporting high-quality manufacturing development.

Related Articles

Foshan Ceramics EU Customs Detention — Maritime Injunction and Cross-Border IP Coordination

Court: Guangzhou Maritime Court (2024) Facts: A Foshan ceramics company (petitioner) owned the "XX Ceramics" registered trademark, but its EU-bound goods were detained by German customs on suspicion of infringing an Italian company's design patent. The petitioner urgently applied to the Guangzhou Maritime Court for a maritime injunction ordering the carrier to suspend delivery and […]

Read

Zhaoqing Chemical v. Hong Kong Forwarder — Choice of Law in Hong Kong-Related Forwarding

Court: Guangzhou Maritime Court (2024) Facts: A Zhaoqing chemical enterprise (plaintiff) engaged a Hong Kong forwarder (defendant) for imported chemical raw materials, with no written contract beyond WeChat communications. Upon arrival at Huangpu Port, some raw materials were moisture-damaged, causing 600,000 RMB in losses. The plaintiff sued for compensation; the defendant argued Hong Kong law […]

Read