I. Core Facts: A Four-Year IP Battle Concludes

On September 22, 2025, the Supreme People's Court rendered its final judgment in the administrative dispute over the invalidation of an appearance design patent between Danone (China) Food & Beverage Co., Ltd., the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), and Xiaoyangren Biological Dairy Group Co., Ltd. The court dismissed Danone's appeal and upheld the original ruling, confirming the invalidation of Danone's "bottle" appearance design patent. With this, a series of intellectual property disputes spanning nearly four years came to a close.

II. Origins of the Dispute: "Kudong" vs. "Mizone"

On November 15, 2021, Danone alleged that the "Kudong" vitamin drink launched by Xiaoyangren Group bore a close resemblance to the packaging and trade dress of its "Mizone" product, constituting unfair competition, and filed suit in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court. The court found that "Kudong" and "Mizone" were similar in overall bottle shape, color scheme, text, and graphics, and that ordinary consumers were likely to be confused. The court of first instance ruled that Xiaoyangren had committed unfair competition, ordering it to cease infringement and pay 1.5 million yuan in damages. Xiaoyangren appealed, but the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court upheld the original judgment.

III. The Trademark Battle: "Kudong" Wins Four in a Row

During the litigation, Danone simultaneously filed a request for invalidation of Xiaoyangren's "Kudong KUDONG" trademark. On July 18, 2023, the CNIPA ruled to dismiss Danone's request and upheld the validity of the "Kudong" trademark. Danone sued in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. On December 18, 2023, the court of first instance upheld the trademark ruling, finding that "Kudong" and "Mizone" were significantly different in text composition, pronunciation, meaning, and overall appearance. Danone appealed to the Beijing High People's Court, which again dismissed the appeal. Danone then applied for retrial at the Supreme People's Court. On June 9, 2025, the Supreme People's Court ruled to dismiss the application. In the trademark proceedings, Xiaoyangren won all four rounds.

IV. The Patent Battle: The "Mizone" Bottle Patent Invalidated

On March 8, 2024, Xiaoyangren filed a request with the CNIPA to invalidate Danone's "bottle" appearance design patent (No. ZL201930691222.6). On July 22, 2024, the CNIPA issued a decision holding that the patent lacked significant distinction compared with combinations of prior design features, and declared the patent right invalid in its entirety. Danone, dissatisfied, sued in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. On March 21, 2025, the court of first instance upheld the invalidation decision. Danone appealed to the Supreme People's Court. On September 22, 2025, the Supreme People's Court dismissed the appeal in its final judgment. The Court noted that the bottle body shape was identical to the comparison design, and the label portion contained only minor local differences insufficient to produce a notable impact on the overall visual effect.

V. Different Outcomes in the Same Case: A Trade Dress Win Does Not Mean a Valid Patent

At this point, the series of disputes between Danone and Xiaoyangren presented seemingly contradictory results: in the unfair competition case, Danone prevailed and the "Kudong" trade dress was found infringing; in the trademark case, Danone lost and the "Kudong" trademark remained valid; in the patent case, Danone lost and the "Mizone" bottle design patent was invalidated.

This outcome reveals a key legal principle: trade dress protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and appearance design patent protection under the Patent Law are two entirely separate legal pathways.

Trade dress protection safeguards the goodwill and market influence accumulated by the rights holder through prolonged use — so long as the "Mizone" packaging has formed a "certain degree of influence" in consumer recognition, others' use of similar trade dress may constitute unfair competition, regardless of whether the packaging holds a valid patent. Appearance design patent protection, by contrast, safeguards a concrete design solution possessing novelty and creativity — if it lacks significant distinction from prior designs, it should be invalidated. The two pathways differ in their protection standards, examination logic, and remedies. Winning a trade dress case does not mean the bottle design itself possesses patent-worthy creativity; conversely, a patent being invalidated does not mean the trade dress may be freely imitated.

VI. Implications of the Case

Implication 1: Trademark, patent, and unfair competition are three independent protection pathways. The same product may simultaneously involve all three types of rights, but each has distinct protection requirements, examination standards, and consequences. When enforcing rights, one must clarify the applicable conditions and evidentiary requirements.

Implication 2: Appearance design patents must withstand the "creativity" test. Grant of a patent does not guarantee compliance with substantive requirements; any entity or individual may request its invalidation. Enterprises should ensure their design solutions possess sufficient novelty and creativity when applying for patents, so as to avoid an unstable foundation of rights.

Implication 3: The "certain degree of influence" of trade dress and the "creativity" of a patent are two different things. A single package may obtain protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law through prolonged use, yet its design itself may be invalidated as a patent for lack of creativity. The two protect interests at different levels and are not interchangeable.