Design Patent Expiry Does Not Allow Unrestricted Copying: Counterfeit CASIO Watches Ordered to Pay ¥3 Million Compensati
I. Core Facts: Copycat CASIO Watches Incur ¥3 Million Damages
In June 2026, the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province concluded a trade dress infringement lawsuit filed by CASIO Computer Co., Ltd. of Japan and upheld the first-instance judgment. Two defendants, Shenzhen Texxx Watch Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Mouyuan Watch Industry Co., Ltd., were ordered to immediately cease using trade dress identical or confusingly similar to CASIO GA110 watches, and jointly pay RMB 3 million to cover CASIO’s economic losses and reasonable legal expenses.
II. Case Background & Defendants’ Infringing Conduct
CASIO GA110 series watches have been sold globally since 2010. Nine distinctive design elements of its dial — oversized case, protruding function buttons, Y-shaped structure, small pressure gauge-style subdial and others — deliver strong market distinctiveness. The design was previously protected by a design patent whose term expired in November 2019.
Shortly after patent expiry, Mouyuan Company and Texxx Company began manufacturing and selling "TASGO/Texxx" watches. Apart from differing trademarks and partial color schemes, their overall trade dress was nearly identical to the GA110; the defendants admitted they produced one-to-one replicas. The counterfeit products were mass-sold via e-commerce platforms including Tmall and Pinduoduo, with individual product links recording tens of thousands of sales units.
III. Litigation Process & Core Appellate Dispute
Claiming unauthorized use of trade dress with certain market influence, CASIO filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, demanding cessation of infringement and compensation of RMB 5 million. The first-instance court ruled the conduct constituted unfair competition, ordering the defendants to stop infringement and pay RMB 3 million in damages. Both parties appealed to the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province.
The core appellate issue: After a design patent enters the public domain, can the right holder still claim protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law?
IV. Parties’ Arguments & Court Ruling
Texxx Company argued that once the patent term expired, the design should be freely available to the public. It claimed CASIO was attempting to extend patent protection indirectly through the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which violates legislative intent, and that widespread similar trade dress on the market had erased its source-distinguishing function.
CASIO countered that patent termination only terminates exclusive rights to the design itself, while brand goodwill accumulated through long-term sales qualifies for supplementary protection as distinctive trade dress under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Exact replicas piggyback on brand goodwill and cause consumer confusion, and such acts must be prohibited.
The High People’s Court of Guangdong fully supported CASIO’s claims. It clarified: While design patents enter the public domain upon expiry for general free use, such free exploitation shall not conflict with pre-existing legitimate rights of others. Any use that confuses consumers over product origin amounts to unfair competition. The defendants’ defense based solely on patent expiration was rejected.
V. Confirmation of Distinctive Trade Dress & Final Verdict
The court confirmed the trade dress of CASIO GA110 watches qualifies as "trade dress with certain market influence". Evidence showed the series generated over RMB 600 million in mainland China sales between 2016 and 2020, with cumulative advertising and promotion costs exceeding RMB 50 million. Media coverage, online reviews and celebrity endorsements further strengthened its market recognition.
The nine core design features are non-functional decorative structures rather than universal industry designs. Even with differing trademarks, pricing and target consumer groups, near-identical replica trade dress easily misleads the public into presuming licensing, sponsorship or other business connections between the two brands. The appellate court upheld the original judgment.
VI. Key Case Takeaways
This is the first unfair competition case concerning counterfeit trade dress filed by CASIO after its relevant design patent expired, serving as an important judicial precedent.
-
Expired patents do not authorize free replication of others’ brand goodwill
Once a design patent expires, the design itself enters public domain, but one-to-one replica production that confuses product origin remains unlawful — brand goodwill does not lapse alongside patent terms. If replica products trigger consumer confusion, the trademark owner is entitled to remedies under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
-
One design can enjoy multi-layered intellectual property protection
A single product appearance may be protected simultaneously by design patents and, after long-term market operation, as distinctive trade dress under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The expiry of one IP right does not invalidate all forms of protection. The case reminds enterprises that market reputation built over years remains a powerful legal weapon for rights protection even after patent expiration.
