"I’m the fourth daughter in my family, so neighbors call me Sijie. Why can’t I use this name?" Liu Sijie, a 50-year-old operator of Sijie Shredded Rabbit store in Chengdu High-tech Zone, still feels wronged. In 2025, a catering company based in Yangzhou sued her for trademark infringement over the word "Sijie" and claimed compensation of 500,000 yuan. Liu filed a counterclaim, alleging the plaintiff abused intellectual property rights and demanded a public apology plus 60,000 yuan in damages. In early 2026, the People’s Court of Chengdu High-tech Zone handed down the first-instance judgment, ruling no trademark infringement existed and dismissing both parties’ claims. Neither side appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
I. Conflict Between Two "Sijie" Brands
The dispute dates back over a decade. Starting in 2009, Li operated a hot pot restaurant named Sijie Old Hot Pot in Chongqing and registered three "Sijie" trademarks in 2011, covering Class 30 instant food, Class 35 advertising and sales, and Class 43 catering and accommodation. The Yangzhou catering company acquired full ownership of these trademarks via transfer in 2016.
Also in 2016, Liu Sijie began selling shredded rabbit from a street stall, adopting the nickname "Sijie" as she was the fourth child in her family. In 2017, she registered an individual industrial and commercial household called High-tech Zone Sijie Shredded Rabbit Braised Food Shop, and used "Sijie" on store signs, price lists and other displays. The Yangzhou company initiated litigation in 2025, alleging trademark infringement.
II. Three-Layer Judicial Analysis: No Infringement Established
The core standard for trademark infringement lies in whether the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the source of goods or services. The court conducted analysis from three dimensions:
-
Dissimilar goods and services. Liu’s shop mainly produces and sells freshly cooked shredded rabbit for takeaway, while the plaintiff’s trademark covers dine-in hot pot catering. They differ greatly in service forms, product types and consumer groups, and do not constitute identical or similar services.
-
Weak inherent distinctiveness of the "Sijie" mark. Kinship-based titles such as "Sijie (Fourth Sister)" and "Mou Ge (Brother XX)" are widely used for catering stores in Sichuan and Chongqing. "Sijie" is not an original coined term with weak inherent distinctiveness, so its scope of trademark protection shall be limited accordingly.
-
No likelihood of consumer confusion. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of large-scale, regular use of its "Sijie" trademark after 2016, so the mark could not form a stable exclusive association with its brand source. The defendant operated an obviously different food category, so the public would not link the two brands.
On the above grounds, the court dismissed the infringement claim. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s trademark litigation was a legitimate exercise of civil rights without malicious intent, so Liu’s counterclaim was also rejected.
III. Judge’s Legal Interpretation: Dynamic Boundaries of Trademark Protection
Judge Dong Miao from the IP Tribunal of Chengdu High-tech Zone People’s Court explained that the Trademark Law protects commercial goodwill accumulated by brand operation, rather than literal words themselves. Kinship-based shop names are a long-standing local business custom in Sichuan and Chongqing; marks with weak inherent distinctiveness shall not be over-protected, otherwise they will hinder others’ legitimate commercial use.
This does not mean such trademarks are completely unprotected. If long-term market application enables the mark to form a stable connection with its source (i.e., acquire secondary meaning), the trademark owner may still claim exclusive rights. The scope of trademark protection is dynamic, adjusted according to market recognition and actual usage.
IV. Case Significance: Clear Boundaries for IP Rights to Boost Market Vitality
This judgment adheres to the core standard of "likelihood of confusion" for trademark infringement, comprehensively weighing trademark distinctiveness, actual usage and regional business customs to define reasonable protection scope. It balances legitimate trademark rights of registrants and reserves reasonable space for legitimate market use.
After the verdict, Liu Sijie updated her store signs and continued operation. Her words resonate with numerous small and micro catering operators: "I won the lawsuit, but business owners should still be cautious when naming shops." Trademark protection has clear boundaries: weaker distinctiveness equals narrower protection scope; no consumer confusion means no infringement. Judicial IP protection not only empowers original brands but also safeguards fair market competition.
