Chinese Supreme Court: Copyright Infringement Not Determined by Proportion of Graphic Element in Trade Mark-Industry News-Shenzhen deep trust patent Agency Co., LTD

News Updates

NEWS CENTER

Related News

There is currently no data available

Home

Chinese Supreme Court: Copyright Infringement Not Determined by Proportion of Graphic Element in Trade Mark

Release Time：

2025-05-21

In a recently published retrial decision of an administrative lawsuit concerning trade mark invalidation, the Supreme People’s Court of China ("SPC") clarified that the registration of a subsequent trade mark may infringe prior copyrights in a graphic work, even if the copyrighted element occupies a minor portion of the disputed mark.

Basic Fact

In 2016, Mr. Li, a Chinese individual, created an artistic work featuring the text “老锄头 GOOD HOE” (Chinese characters meaning Old Hoe) and an image of a farmer holding a hoe (specimen below). In the same year, he applied for trade mark registration (No. 19354087) for goods in Class 31 (“trees; plants, etc.”) and also registered it as a copyrighted artwork. The trade mark was granted in 2017.

TM No. 19354087 & Copyrighted artwork

A Chinese company applied for trade mark registration (No. 39873730, specimen below) in 2019, which was registered in 2020 for goods in Class 1 (“fertilizers, etc.”). The farmer image in this mark resembled Li’s work but occupied a relatively minor proportion within the overall mark.

TM No. 39873730 (without the indicative arrow)

Li filed an invalidation action against the disputed mark on the grounds including copyright infringement, which was not supported by the China National Intellectual Property Administration ("CNIPA"). The CNIPA held that the disputed mark as a whole lacks substantial similarity to Li’s copyrighted work in the sense of copyright law, and therefore does not constitute infringement.

Li subsequently initiated administrative litigation. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court (first instance) ruled that the disputed mark infringed Li’s copyright by incorporating a farmer image substantially similar to his work, thereby overturning CNIPA’s decision.

The CNIPA appealed. The second-instance court, the Beijing Higher People’s Court held that the image of the farmer in the disputed mark accounts for a small portion of the mark, and that the main identifying part of the mark is the green Chinese character “耕” (meaning “farming”), with the overall structure and visual effect of the mark differing significantly from that of Mr. Li's copyright work, and therefore not constituting a copyright infringement. Accordingly, it overturned the first-instance judgment.

Li petitioned for retrial before the SPC, which ultimately ruled in his favour.

Key Points of the SPC Ruling

The SPC first affirmed that the “farmer holding a hoe” image qualifies as a copyright-protected artistic work. It further held that the corresponding image in the disputed mark was nearly identical to Li’s work in terms of character posture, hoe shape, positioning, design techniques, and visual effects, thereby establishing substantial similarity under copyright law. The court emphasised that the determination of copyright infringement shall not hinge on the proportional size of the copied element.

Consequently, the SPC revoked the second-instance judgment and CNIPA’s original decision, ruling that the disputed mark infringed Li’s prior copyright.

Takeaways

The SPC’s ruling sparked public discussion due to the minimal proportion of the infringing element in the disputed mark, rendering the outcome seemingly a little surprising.

However, this case clarifies importantly that copyright infringement hinges on the copying of a “substantial part” of the copied work rather than the proportion of the copied element in the disputed mark. Even a minor infringing component in a trade mark may constitute infringement if it materially harms prior rights. This reflects judicial protection of “prior rights” including copyright and rectifies the over-reliance on “holistic comparison” in trade mark infringement determinations.

The case underscores the importance for creators to promptly secure trade mark registrations, copyright registrations, and preservation of publication evidence for their works in order to safeguard their rights and combat infringements effectively.