China’s SPC and SPP Publish 2024 Criminal IP Enforcement Cases Highlighting Trademark, Patent, and Copyright Protections

On April 24, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) jointly released the Typical Cases of Criminal IP Enforcement for 2024 (知识产权刑事保护典型案例). This publication illustrates how the newly issued Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights is applied in practice.

The cases involve several foreign intellectual property owners, including Lego and Universal Studios, and include two criminal trade secret theft cases. The compilation highlights the judicial approach to trademark counterfeiting, patent counterfeiting, copyright infringement, and trade secret violations under China’s amended criminal law framework.

One highlighted case involved Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. and its operator Yao XX, who were prosecuted for counterfeiting Lego’s registered trademarks “Lego” and “LEGO Education.” Between March and June 2021, the defendants operated a store named “LC Lego Robot Center,” using counterfeit authorization letters and coach qualification certificates. They displayed Lego trademarks on store signage, decorations, employee clothing, and promotional materials while providing education and training services. The company collected over 510,000 RMB in training fees. The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court found both defendants guilty of counterfeiting registered trademarks and sentenced them accordingly.

This case reflects the impact of the Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI), which expanded criminal liability to include counterfeiting registered service trademarks. The judicial interpretation clarified the standards for identifying “the same type of service” and confirmed that service fees collected by infringers constitute illegal income for conviction purposes.

Another case involved defendants Long, Gao, Chen, Yuan, and Zeng, who counterfeited registered trademarks owned by Rong on disposable medical protective clothing. From December 2021 to January 2022, they purchased unlicensed protective clothing and packaging materials, repackaged the products with Rong’s trademarks, and sold over 40,000 sets, generating illegal business revenue exceeding 580,000 RMB. The People’s Court of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone convicted the defendants of counterfeiting registered trademarks, emphasizing that the counterfeit goods and the trademark owner’s products were “the same kind of goods” under Article 213 of the Criminal Law.

The judicial interpretation further clarifies the criteria for determining “the same kind of goods,” considering factors such as function, purpose, raw materials, consumer base, and sales channels. It also specifies circumstances warranting joint crime punishment, ensuring precise enforcement against manufacturing and selling counterfeit medical products.

In a high-profile trademark counterfeiting case, defendant Lu XX and others produced and sold counterfeit “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS” branded products without authorization from November 2019 to August 2022. They manufactured robes, scarves, ties, and other merchandise bearing these trademarks, generating illegal business revenue exceeding 11.25 million RMB. Authorities seized over 25,000 counterfeit products and tens of thousands of counterfeit tags and labels. The People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, ruled that the defendants’ use of identical trademarks constituted counterfeiting and sentenced them accordingly.

The judicial interpretation clarifies the identification standards for “identical trademarks,” including cases where infringing marks add non-distinctive elements that do not affect the registered trademark’s distinctiveness. This case underscores China’s strict stance on protecting intellectual property rights.

In a patent counterfeiting case, defendants Zhao XX and Zhang XX operated a biotechnology company and printed the patent number of a Chinese medicine research company’s invention patent on cosmetics packaging without authorization. From 2021 onward, they sold counterfeit cosmetics bearing the patent number, with illegal business amounts exceeding 1.56 million RMB. The Baiyun District People’s Court of Guangzhou City convicted them of patent counterfeiting, noting that unauthorized use of patent marks misleads the public and damages patent owners’ rights.

The judicial interpretation defines the scope of patent counterfeiting, specifying circumstances constituting “serious” infringement warranting criminal liability, thereby strengthening patent protection.

A copyright infringement case involved defendants Zhang and Sun, who operated multiple film and television aggregation apps from late 2017 to January 2023. They uploaded popular audiovisual works without permission, provided playback and download services via rented cloud servers, and profited from advertising revenue. The defendants disseminated over 72,000 audiovisual works through “hotlinking,” a technique enabling access to content without hosting it directly.

The People’s Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City, held that “hotlinking” constitutes “dissemination to the public through information networks” under Article 217 of the Criminal Law. The judicial interpretation confirms that providing works enabling public access at any time and place without authorization infringes copyright owners’ dissemination rights. This ruling addresses emerging technologies that facilitate unauthorized content distribution.

Finally, defendants Liu XX and Liu YY were convicted for producing and selling dongles that circumvented technical protection measures on copyrighted software from March 2019 to July 2022. Liu XX manufactured the dongles and copied pirated software, while Liu YY handled customer service and collections. Their illegal business amounts exceeded 1.06 million RMB and 140,000 RMB, respectively. The case highlights enforcement against circumvention devices and piracy under China’s criminal IP laws.

These typical cases reflect China’s intensified criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights, guided by recent amendments to the Criminal Law and judicial interpretations. They demonstrate the legal system’s commitment to protecting trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, including those of foreign rights holders, through precise application of law and enhanced penalties.