On April 26, the Beijing High People's Court released the top 10 intellectual property protection cases handled by Beijing courts in 2025. A dispute case over unfair competition involving trademark squatting and abuse of administrative procedures, represented by Unitalen Law Firm, was selected as one of the top 10 typical cases.

Introduction to the Selected Case

Case 8: A Dispute Case over Unfair Competition involving Trademark Squatting and Abuse of Administrative Procedures

Information Brief

Case Numbers: (2023) Jing 0101 Civil First 3748; (2024) Jing 73 Civil Final 1803

Plaintiffs (represented by Unitalen): Party A Co., Ltd.; and a Guangdong Electrical Appliance Company

Defendants: Party B Co. Ltd.; a Shandong Electrical Appliance Company; a Shandong Instrument Company; and FAN [Redacted]

Case Brief

The Plaintiffs, Party A Co., Ltd., and a Guangdong Electrical Appliance Company are the exclusive right holders of the trademarks for small household appliance brands "MORPHY RICHARDS" and "摩飞". The Defendant, FAN [Redacted], is the actual controller of the three defendant companies: Party B Co., Ltd., a Shandong Electrical Appliance Company, and a Shandong Instrument Company (collectively referred to as the "three companies"). Since 2017, the Defendant Fan [Redacted], through three companies, has filed applications to register multiple trademarks for small household appliance-related goods, including "摩飞" and "摩飞电器," which are similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks. The majority of these applications have been declared invalid, and a prior effective judgment had already determined that the relevant trademarks were registered through "other improper means". Since 2021, Fan [Redacted], through the three companies, has repeatedly initiated proceedings, including revocation, invalidation, and opposition against the "摩飞" series of trademarks registered by the Plaintiffs. The two Plaintiffs alleged that the aforesaid conduct of the four Defendants had seriously disrupted their normal business operations and constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance held that the three companies' malicious squatting and the filing of numerous trademark administrative proceedings against the Plaintiffs' trademarks violated the principle of good faith, demonstrated clear subjective malice, and thus constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the three companies to cease the unfair competition behaviors at issue immediately, publish a statement to eliminate the effects, and compensate the Plaintiffs with RMB 900,000 for economic damages and RMB 100,000 for reasonable expenses. The three companies disagreed with the decision and filed an appeal. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical case of determining that malicious squatting of others' trademarks and abuse of trademark administrative procedures constitute unfair competition. This case applies the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate the accused conduct, effectively curbing unfair competition involving malicious squatting and abuse of trademark administrative procedures. It thus has positive significance for maintaining the normal order of trademark registration and administration and fostering a fair and competitive market environment.