When you quickly buy cold medicine at a pharmacy, two boxes of granules with white-top-green-bottom design catch your eye: similar dark green waistlines, close leaf decorations, and almost identical layout. Can you instantly tell which one is the best-selling 999 Ganmaoling Granules (with billions in annual sales) and which is a copycat? On March 14, 2026, the People’s Court of Baiyun District, Guangzhou concluded this "copycat" infringement case, issuing a 200,000-yuan compensation judgment and drawing a clear red line for intellectual property protection of medicine packaging.
I. Case Background: 20-Year Classic Packaging Copied Pixel-Perfect
China Resources Sanjiu Medical & Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. has used the distinctive packaging of 999 Ganmaoling Granules since around 2005. After 20 years of market validation, it has become a blockbuster product with billions in annual sales. Its iconic white-top-green-bottom color scheme, dark green inverted L-shaped waistline, light green texture with leaf and sphere decorations, has built stable brand recognition among consumers.
In 2023, Sanjiu found a kind of Ganmao Qingre Granules produced by Heng Company and sold by Xiao Company on the market, with packaging highly similar to 999 Ganmaoling Granules. They not only shared the white-top-green-bottom design, but also matched in trademark position, product name layout, OTC logo placement, and details like dark green waistline, light green texture and leaf decorations. Sanjiu sued the two companies for unfair competition.
II. Judicial Finding: "Distinctive Influence" Standard for Packaging
The core legal dispute was whether medicine packaging is protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. On March 14, 2026, the People’s Court of Baiyun District, Guangzhou issued a first-instance judgment with a positive answer.
According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, distinctive packaging of goods with certain influence is protected by law. The court ruled that the packaging of 999 Ganmaoling Granules has gained high reputation among relevant consumers through long-term and extensive promotion and use, and can distinguish the source of goods, fully meeting the requirement of "distinctive influence".
For infringement comparison, the court adopted the standard of overall observation and comprehensive judgment. Although there were minor differences in trademark patterns, text in the waistline and specific leaf patterns, these local differences were not visually prominent. With the ordinary attention of relevant consumers, the similar packaging was highly likely to cause confusion and misidentification when observed separately. This "specious" design is a typical tactic for copycats to exploit brand reputation and confuse the market.
III. Subjective Malice: "Not in Good Faith" for Peer Operators
A key finding in the judgment is noteworthy: the court pointed out that Heng Company, as a peer operator, should have known the famous packaging of Sanjiu’s product, but still used, produced and sold highly similar packaging, making it "not in good faith" subjectively.
This finding hits the core element of IP infringement—subjective fault. Different from ordinary trademark infringement, packaging copying is often more concealed, and infringers often defend with "design coincidence" or "industry common practice". However, in this case, the combination of white-top-green-bottom, unique inverted L-shaped waistline, and leaf-sphere decorations went far beyond "coincidence", constituting systematic copying of distinctive packaging. The court’s finding of subjective malice reserved room for punitive damages.
IV. Liability Allocation: Compensation for Producers, Cessation for Sellers
The court ruled liabilities separately:
Heng Company, as the producer, was ordered to immediately stop unfair competition and compensate Sanjiu 200,000 yuan (including reasonable expenses);
Xiao Company, as the seller, was exempted from compensation because it proved the legitimate source of goods and ignorance of infringement, but still had to stop selling the infringing products.
This ruling reflects refined IP protection: sellers can be exempted from compensation through legitimate source defense, but the obligation to stop infringement is not waived; producers, as the source of infringement, bear full compensation liability. The 200,000-yuan compensation considers Sanjiu’s rights protection cost and brand reputation loss, and effectively deters peer counterfeiting. The judgment has taken effect.
V. Industry Implications: From Trademark Protection 1.0 to Packaging Protection 2.0
China Resources Sanjiu’s brand protection journey epitomizes the IP evolution of Chinese pharmaceutical enterprises. According to Yang Haixia, Sanjiu’s brand protection director, market infringement has gone through three eras:
1.0 Era: Direct trademark use;
2.0 Era: Enterprise name infringement;
3.0 Era: Concealed packaging copycat.
The victory in this case marks upgraded judicial protection for "distinctive packaging of goods with certain influence". For enterprises, brand protection should expand from single trademark registration to copyright registration of packaging design, design patent application and anti-unfair competition rights protection. For consumers, the judgment reduces confusion and mispurchase risks.
VI. Compliance Warning: Avoiding Pitfalls for Medicine Packaging Design
This case warns the pharmaceutical and FMCG industries: packaging design is not a shortcut for free-riding. Enterprises should follow these rules when designing product packaging:
-
Prior search: Check well-known packaging in the industry before finalizing design to avoid copycatting.
-
Originality: Adopt independent design for color, graphics and layout, instead of pixel-perfect copying.
-
Evidence retention: Keep complete design drafts to prove independent creation in disputes.
Conclusion
The white-top-green-bottom color scheme is not exclusive, but when a specific combination of colors, graphics and layout has been market-tested for 20 years and forms a unique connection with a product, the law grants it the right to exclude copycats. The 200,000-yuan compensation judgment on March 14, 2026 not only recognizes the brand value of China Resources Sanjiu, but also confirms the legal status of "distinctive packaging of goods with certain influence".
In the era of strong IP protection, imitation may bring short-term traffic, but only originality wins long-term respect. The "copycat game" of packaging is a legal forbidden zone.
