On June 10^th, 2025, SMAR published 7 typical cases of administrative law enforcement related to trademarks for 2024, including two cases involving trademark infringement and liability of video platforms.

•   Case I: Punishment and Investigation against Suzhou Kaidong Garment Accessories Co., Ltd. by the Administration for Market Regulation of Changshu City, Jiangsu Province

In March 2024, the Administration for Market Regulation of Changshu City ("Changshu Administration"), in collaboration with the local public security department, initiated an investigation into Suzhou Kaidong Garment Accessories Co., Ltd. ("the infringer") for producing and selling goods that infringed upon the "YKK" trademark. The estimated illegal business volume exceeded RMB 1.5 million, and authorities discovered 1,261 zippers and over 1.08 million zipper heads bearing the "YKK" logo. The infringer's actions violated Article 57(3) of the Trademark Law of the PRC, which prohibits "selling goods that infringe on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark". Furthermore, since the infringer's actions were suspected to constitute a crime, the Changshu Administration transferred the case to the Changshu Public Security Bureau, in accordance with Article 27(1) of the Administrative Penalty Law of the PRC and Article 3 of the Provisions on the Transfer of Suspected Criminal Cases from Administrative Law Enforcement Agencies.

•   Case II: Punishment and Investigation against Shanghai Aidoujun Culture Communication Co., Ltd. by the Administration for Market Regulation of Yangpu District, Shanghai

In September 2024, Shanghai Aidoujun Culture Communication Co., Ltd. ("Platform Operator") was investigated and fined RMB 660,000 by the Administration for Market Regulation of Yangpu District for facilitating third-party trademark infringements.

The Platform Operator's internet video platform was found to include videos promoting counterfeit sports shoes bearing well-known brands such as Nike and Louis Vuitton. Although the Platform Operator took management measures, such as removing the videos and banning accounts, it was discovered, inter alia, that the Platform Operator couldn't effectively stop the spread of the dissemination chain due to the lack of direct communication with the trademark holders. Furthermore, the Platform Operator provided traffic promotion services for four counterfeit videos without reviewing their content and collected a total of RMB 330,000 in promotional fees. The Platform Operator's conduct violated Article 57(6) of the Trademark Law of the PRC, which prohibits "providing convenience for or even help others to infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark on purpose" as well as Article 75 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of the PRC.

Source:
https://www.samr.gov.cn/xw/zj/art/2025/art_21144964823e4f2eadf02e1cc722e78b.html (Chinese)