Is it trademark infringement to apply Burberry’s iconic check pattern on garment lining?
A recent ruling from Hefei Intermediate People’s Court ended with the defendants jointly paying 420,000 yuan in compensation to Burberry Limited, sounding an alarm on trademark compliance across the apparel sector.
Case Overview
As a British luxury brand steeped in British culture, Burberry registered its classic check graphic trademark in the UK in the 1970s and secured relevant trademark registrations in China in 2000, including Registration Nos. G732879 and G987322. The G732879 mark was recognized as a well-known trademark in 2014 and is owned by Burberry Limited.
In 2021, Burberry discovered garments sold on e-commerce platforms featured identical or similar check patterns on inner lining. After investigation, the right holder sued an apparel manufacturer, a distribution firm and five online retail stores for trademark infringement.
During litigation, defendants put forward two major defenses:
-
The check was only printed on hidden lining, invisible during regular wear, amounting merely to decorative printing instead of trademark use.
-
Defendants bore their own independent word trademarks, and their goods were priced far below genuine Burberry products, so consumer confusion was impossible.
The five online vendors additionally claimed unawareness of infringement and legitimate sourcing, arguing exemption from compensation liability.
The Hefei Intermediate People’s Court dismissed all defenses and affirmed trademark infringement.
The court compared three versions of disputed checks against Burberry’s registered marks: two were visually identical to the original trademarks, and the third copied core features to constitute similar marks.
Per Article 48 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, trademark use refers to affixing marks on goods, packages or in commercial activities to identify the source of products. The core criterion hinges on source identification instead of the mark’s visible position. After decades of extensive promotion and application, Burberry’s check has formed an exclusive, distinctive link with the brand.
Even on inner lining, consumers are prone to associating the check with Burberry upon inspection while shopping or wearing, leading to confusion over product origin or false assumption of authorized cooperation between the two parties.
Legitimate Source Defense Overruled
Under Paragraph 2 of Article 64 of the Trademark Law, sellers who unknowingly peddle infringing goods may avoid damages upon proving lawful procurement and disclosing suppliers.
However, the defendant company with registered capital of RMB 3 million failed to submit valid evidence of formal suppliers and normal transaction payments. The hang tags only printed the defendant’s corporate information, which objectively indicated the manufacturer. The court thus confirmed production and sales constituted trademark infringement.
Industry Warning
This case clarifies a key judicial rule: trademark infringement is judged by likelihood of consumer confusion over product source, rather than where the pattern is placed on clothing. The 420,000-yuan compensation signals rigorous crackdown on brand free-riding and higher infringement costs, setting a clear compliance baseline for all apparel operators to respect intellectual property rights.
