I. Case Recap: The Copycat Next Door Finally Loses the Lawsuit
The start of 2026 saw a judgment from the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court sound the alarm for numerous free-riding businesses: the "Qian Daye" fresh produce store was ordered to pay 30,000 yuan in compensation and rebrand for piggybacking on the well-known chain brand "Qian Dama". This trademark infringement case, which seems like a "neighborhood dispute", actually reflects the continuous escalation of intellectual property protection in China.
The story begins with two adjacent stores in a community in Nansha, Guangzhou, where the "Qian Dama" sign has long been deeply rooted in people's hearts. Founded in 2014, this fresh produce chain has built thousands of stores nationwide with its business philosophy of "no overnight meat sold" and years of brand cultivation, becoming a leading player in the community fresh produce sector. However, right next to the "Qian Dama" store, a shop named "Qian Daye Fresh Produce" quietly opened for business.
The words "Qian Daye" were everywhere, from the store sign design and payment QR codes to shopping receipts and bill details. More subtly, the two stores sold the same pork, vegetables and fruits, serving the same group of community residents. This close-proximity layout pushed Qian Dama Company to the limit, leading it to take Qian Daye to court in the end.
The defense of the defendant, Qian Daye Fresh Produce Store, was quite representative: first, it claimed the store name was approved and registered by the market supervision and administration bureau, making its operation legal; second, it emphasized that "Qian Daye" was a normally used trade name, and "fresh produce" was merely its business feature, with no right conflict with "Qian Dama". This logic of "I’m in the right because I registered it" is common in many infringement disputes.
The court, however, rejected this claim. The People's Court of Nansha District, Guangzhou City, found in the first instance that "Qian Daye" constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and ordered 30,000 yuan in compensation. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance. This means Qian Daye not only paid the compensation but also had to rebrand, with all its previous brand investment going down the drain.
II. Legal Analysis: Why Qian Daye Was Bound to Lose?
(1) Similar Trademarks: A Single Character Difference Leads to Severe Legal Consequences
One of the core disputes in this case is whether "Qian Daye" infringed on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of "Qian Dama".
According to Article 57 of the Trademark Law, without the permission of the trademark registrant, using a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same kind of goods, or using a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on similar goods, which is likely to cause confusion, shall constitute an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.
In its comparison, the court found that "Qian Daye" and "Qian Dama" differ by only one character at the end, with highly similar character composition and pronunciation. Considering the popularity of the "Qian Dama" trademark in the fresh produce retail industry, relevant members of the public are highly likely to associate the two brands and wonder "are these two stores related?" when seeing the "Qian Daye" logo. This likelihood of confusion is the key to determining trademark infringement.
Notably, "Qian Dama" is registered as a Class 35 trademark, covering service items such as "sales promotion for others". Although Qian Daye engages in fresh produce retail, which seems to be commodity sales, it actually includes service contents such as sales promotion and marketing. Based on this, the court found that the two constituted similar services, further consolidating the basis for finding infringement.
(2) Unfair Competition: The Duty of Reasonable Avoidance for Enterprise Trade Names
If trademark infringement is an overt violation of the law, unfair competition is a covert one. In this case, the court's negative evaluation of Qian Daye's use of its trade name reflects the strong protection of commercial signs by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that business operators shall not engage in the following confusing acts that mislead the public into believing that their goods are those of another person or that there is a specific connection with another person: ... (2) Unauthorized use of the enterprise name (including abbreviations and trade names), social organization name or personal name of another person that has a certain influence.
Founded in 2014, Qian Dama Company has established a stable corresponding relationship between its trade name and the company through continuous publicity and promotion, making the trade name a distinctive sign for distinguishing the source of goods. Qian Daye Fresh Produce Store, founded in 2021, as a competitor in the same industry, should have been aware of the market influence of Qian Dama. Registering "Qian Daye" as its trade name under such circumstances can hardly be deemed in good faith.
The duty of reasonable avoidance, specially emphasized by the judge in the written judgment, is worthy of reflection by all business operators. Market competition is not an unregulated jungle rule; latecomers should respect the commercial reputation formed by others in advance and take the initiative to avoid well-known signs, rather than trying every means to free-ride.
(3) Administrative Registration Does Not Equal Legal Immunity
Qian Daye's core defense—that its trade name was "approved and registered by the market supervision and administration bureau"—is quite misleading in practice. Many infringers mistakenly believe that obtaining a business license is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
This logic, however, is fundamentally flawed. The examination of enterprise names by industrial and commercial registration authorities is mainly a formal one, which does not make a substantive judgment on whether the name infringes on the prior rights of others. This means that registration only grants the qualification of a business entity and does not exempt it from infringement liability. If an enterprise name infringes on the trademark right or trade name right of others, the right holder has the right to demand cessation of infringement and compensation for losses through civil litigation.
In this case, the court ordered Qian Daye to stop using the enterprise name containing "Qian Daye", which reaffirms this principle. The legality of administrative registration cannot counter the priority of civil rights.
III. Industry Warning: When Will the "Name Chaos" in the Fresh Produce Sector End?
The dispute between Qian Dama and Qian Daye is by no means an isolated case. In the trillion-yuan community fresh produce market, brand name squatting has a long history.
From "Shuiguo Xiansheng" to "Guo Xiansheng", from "Meiriyouxian" to "Meirixian", from "Hema Xiansheng" to various "XX Hexian", such character replacement tricks emerge one after another. Some businesses attempt to quickly gain consumer trust and reduce market education costs by imitating the naming style of leading brands. This short-sighted free-riding behavior may bring short-term traffic, but in the long run, it is no different from drinking poison to quench thirst.
For the industry, such chaos brings three major harms:
First, it undermines the enthusiasm of innovators. Players like Qian Dama invest huge sums of money in brand building, only to have copycats reap the benefits, which will inevitably dampen innovation motivation. If free-riding behavior is not curbed, the market will fall into a vicious cycle of bad money driving out good.
Second, it disrupts the market competition order. Consumers may purchase infringing goods based on their trust in well-known brands. Once they find quality differences, they will not only have a negative evaluation of the infringing brand but may even take their anger out on the imitated genuine brand, leading to a lose-lose situation.
Third, it increases social governance costs. Procedures such as trademark opposition, invalidation and infringement litigation consume a lot of administrative and judicial resources. If all market entities operate with self-conscious integrity, these costs could be invested in more valuable innovation activities.
IV. Compliance Suggestions: How Can Enterprises Avoid the Minefield of Piggybacking on Famous Brands?
For the majority of business operators, especially entrepreneurs in high-frequency consumption sectors such as community fresh produce, catering and retail, this case provides the following compliance insights:
(1) Conduct a "Check-Up" Before Naming
Before finalizing an enterprise or brand name, it is imperative to conduct a comprehensive intellectual property search, including:
Trademark database search: Check for identical or similar trademarks on the same or similar goods/services;
Enterprise name search: See if there are influential trade names in the same industry;
Online public opinion monitoring: Understand well-known brands in the industry and avoid using names that are easy to arouse associations.
When necessary, entrust a professional intellectual property agency to issue a risk assessment report to prevent problems before they occur.
(2) Avoid the "Red Line" and Keep a Distance
If the search finds well-known brands in the industry, take the initiative to keep a distance, specifically:
Avoid using words identical or similar to those of well-known brands;
Avoid imitating the font, color matching and decoration style of well-known brands;
Avoid using confusing signs on the same or similar goods/services.
Reasonable avoidance is not only a legal obligation but also a business wisdom. Rather than testing the limits of infringement, it is better to develop a unique brand personality by taking a different approach.
(3) Focus on Accumulation and Cultivate Independent Commercial Reputation
Free-riding may seem like a shortcut, but it is actually a dead end. A truly sustainable business model is built on the value accumulation of independent brands. Business operators should focus their energy on product quality, service experience, supply chain management and other aspects, and form a stable customer group through word-of-mouth communication.
When an enterprise owns independent intellectual property rights and a good commercial reputation, it not only avoids the risk of infringement but also becomes the object of protection, forming a positive cycle.
(4) Take Resolute Action to Protect Rights When Infringed
For right holders, upon discovering infringement acts, they should promptly fix evidence and safeguard their rights through administrative complaints, civil litigation and other channels. In this case, Qian Dama Company filed a lawsuit in a timely manner, effectively curbing the spread of infringement and setting a good example for rights protection in the industry.
V. Conclusion: Leave No Hiding Place for Copycats, Let Innovators Move Forward with Peace of Mind
The judgment in the Qian Daye case is an epitome of the normalization and stricter enforcement of intellectual property protection. With the in-depth implementation of the Outline for Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Country (2021-2035), China will continue to intensify its crackdown on malicious registration, squatting and infringement acts.
For business operators, this is a wake-up call: in a law-based market environment, any "clever trick" may come at a heavy price. Instead of racking their brains to free-ride on famous brands, it is better to build genuine brands down-to-earth.
For consumers, this is a commitment: as copycats are eliminated one by one, we can recognize brand signs with more confidence and consume at ease.
For innovators, this is a shot in the arm: your efforts will not be in vain, and your brand deserves to be protected.
The story of Qian Dama and Qian Daye tells us: the market economy is a legal and credit-based economy. Only by abiding by the rules and operating with integrity can enterprises go far in the fierce competition. Those so-called "smart people" who try to take shortcuts will eventually show their true colors in the clear mirror of the law.
