Introduction
As a major province of foreign trade and manufacturing in China, Guangdong is home to industry clusters in ceramics, lighting, and building materials that frequently encounter IP infringement and cross-border contract disputes. This article compiles five typical cases concluded by Guangdong courts in recent years, organized into three categories: IP protection, foreign-related sales contracts, and cross-over IP plus international trade disputes.
I. IP Cases (Guangdong Local Industries)
Case 1: Foshan Ceramic Company's 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 its 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.
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.
Case 2: Zhongshan Lighting Company's Design Patent Enforcement Case — Distinguishing Functional from Aesthetic Features
Court: Guangzhou IP Court (2023)
Facts: A Zhongshan lighting technology company (Company C) held an industrial design patent for an LED ceiling lamp featuring a distinctive ring-shaped light strip and diamond grille design, which became a market hit. Another lighting company (Company D) produced and sold an identical lamp that, except for minor dimensional differences, matched Company C's patent in overall shape and light strip layout. Company C sued for patent infringement. Company D argued the accused design was functional and not aesthetic, hence unprotectable.
Holding:
(1) The combination of the ring-shaped light strip and diamond grille had clear aesthetic effect, going beyond what was necessary to achieve the lighting function;
(2) The accused product was similar to the patented design and fell within the scope of protection;
(3) The court ordered Company D to stop infringement and pay 800,000 RMB, including economic losses and reasonable enforcement costs.
Significance:
· Clarifies the functional-versus-aesthetic standard for industrial design patents, providing clear legal guidance for the Zhongshan lighting industry cluster;
· Balances innovation protection and competition, guiding companies to enhance core competitiveness through independent design.
II. Foreign-Related Cases (International Sales of Goods)
Case 3: Guangzhou Building Materials v. Slovenian Company — Cross-Border Settlement Through Compound Mediation
Court: Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (2025)
Facts: A Guangzhou building materials exporter (Company E) signed a ceramic sintered-stone export contract with a Slovenian company (Company F) on CIF terms, settled by letter of credit. After shipment, Company F refused payment and demanded returns, citing color differences and specification deviations. The cross-border dispute stalled due to communication difficulties and high resolution costs. Company E sued in Guangzhou Intermediate Court demanding 1.2 million USD in payment.
Mediation Process:
(1) The court applied party autonomy to determine that Chinese law governed the contract;
(2) It innovatively adopted a compound mediation model combining judicial interpretation and mediator facilitation, inviting mediators familiar with China-Slovenia trade practices;
(3) Cross-border video mediation allocated responsibility: Company E bore a 10% discount for minor specification deviations; Company F immediately paid the remaining 90% and waived return claims.
Significance:
· Provides an efficient resolution path for Belt and Road cross-border trade disputes, reducing enforcement costs;
· Reflects Guangdong courts' mediation-first approach in foreign-related trials, helping Guangdong exporters stabilize overseas markets;
· Clarifies quality inspection and payment obligations under CIF terms, providing reference for similar cross-border building materials trade.
Case 4: Zhaoqing Chemical v. Hong Kong Company — Choice of Law and Liability in Hong Kong-Related Sales
Court: Zhaoqing Intermediate People's Court (2024)
Facts: A Zhaoqing chemical enterprise (Company G) signed a chemical raw materials sales contract with a Hong Kong company (Company H), under which H was to supply imported raw materials for ceramic glaze production. During performance, the raw materials delivered by H had excessive heavy metal content, rendering G's glaze unqualified and causing about 5 million RMB in production line shutdown and finished product scrap losses. Failing to reach agreement on liability, G sued.
Holding:
(1) This Hong Kong-related sales contract dispute was tried with reference to foreign-related civil procedure rules, with parties agreeing to apply mainland Chinese law;
(2) The court held that H's non-conforming delivery constituted fundamental breach and H bore full liability;
(3) Considering actual losses, expected profits, and enforcement costs, the court ordered H to compensate G 5 million RMB plus interest.
Significance:
· Clarifies choice-of-law rules for Hong Kong-related commercial disputes, ensuring legal certainty for cross-border trade in the Greater Bay Area;
· Strengthens the quality warranty obligation in foreign-related sales contracts, guiding Guangdong manufacturers to mitigate cross-border procurement risks.
III. Cross-Over IP + International Trade Cases (Key Pain Points for Guangdong Exporters)
Case 5: Foshan Ceramics EU Customs IP Detention — Coordination Between Customs Recordation and Cross-Border Enforcement
Authorities: Huangpu Customs and Guangzhou IP Court (2024)
Facts: A Foshan ceramics company (Company I) owned the "XX Ceramics" registered trademark and several tile design patents, mainly exporting to the EU, and had completed IP recordation with the General Administration of Customs. In March 2024, a shipment of tiles bound for Germany was detained by German customs on suspicion of infringing an Italian company's (Company J's) design patent, and J filed suit in the EU courts. Company I urgently applied to Huangpu Customs for IP protection and filed a declaratory non-infringement action in Guangzhou IP Court.
Outcome:
(1) Huangpu Customs assisted in verifying infringement clues and confirmed clear differences between I's products and J's patent, constituting no infringement;
(2) Guangzhou IP Court issued a declaratory non-infringement judgment, which Company I used to apply to German customs for release;
(3) With EU lawyers assisting the defense, Company J ultimately withdrew the suit and the goods were cleared.
Significance:
· Builds a full-chain enforcement system combining domestic customs recordation, cross-border judicial confirmation, and overseas lawyer coordination, providing a model for Guangdong exporters facing overseas IP detentions;
· Highlights the importance of customs IP protection and encourages exporters to complete IP filings and customs recordation in advance;
· Demonstrates the effectiveness of coordinated IP protection by Guangdong courts and customs, helping exporters address technical trade barriers.
Key Takeaways and Legal Service Recommendations
1. IP Protection:
· Guangdong industry clusters in building materials and lighting should strengthen trademark and patent portfolio, particularly design patent filings and maintenance;
· When facing infringement, fix evidence promptly and leverage spoliation rules and punitive damages.
2. Cross-Border Risk Control:
· Cross-border sales contracts should specify governing law, quality standards, inspection methods, and liability for breach;
· Prefer secure payment methods such as L/C and documentary collection, and conduct due diligence on new customers.
3. Cross-Discipline Compliance:
· Exporters should complete IP filings in target markets (e.g., Madrid trademark registration, PCT patent applications) and record with the General Administration of Customs.