On August 18, 2026, Guangxi Legal Daily reported a trademark infringement case involving the “Xiaomi” trademark, concluded by the People’s Court of Qinbei District, Qinzhou City. The case concerns e‑commerce operators free‑riding on famous brands through visual design tricks, delivering a clear warning for trademark compliance in online sales.

I. Case Review: Hiding “Compatible”, Highlighting “Xiaomi”

Xiaomi Corporation is the right‑holder of the “Xiaomi” series of registered trademarks. The marks enjoy extremely high reputation after long‑term promotion and use, have been recognized as well‑known trademarks by multiple courts, and enjoy exclusive rights in Class 9 goods including computer mice.

Chen ran a digital‑product store on an online platform, selling wireless Bluetooth mice. To ride on the brand’s popularity, he stacked multiple brand keywords in the product title and manipulated the promotional main image: he minimized the word “compatible” to nearly invisible, while enlarging and prominently displaying the characters “Xiaomi”. This design of “invisible qualifier + prominent trademark” highly easily misled consumers into believing the product was associated with Xiaomi.

Investigation showed the mouse cost only RMB 6.51 after coupons, with the page showing “100 000+ units sold”. However, neither the outer packaging nor the product itself bore any “Xiaomi” mark. The actual brand was “BP”, an unlicensed third‑party compatible product. Xiaomi sued Chen for trademark infringement, claiming RMB 100 000 in damages. Chen argued that marking “compatible with Xiaomi” was objective description, the low price would not cause confusion, sales figures were fake, and Xiaomi was conducting commercial mass enforcement.

II. Court Finding: Exceeding Reasonable Use Constitutes Infringement

The Qinbei District People’s Court held that the “Xiaomi” trademark is legally protected. Chen’s deliberate weakening of the word “compatible” and prominent use of the “Xiaomi” trademark exceeded the reasonable scope of describing product compatibility. It constituted “trademark use” that performs the source‑identifying function of a trademark, sufficient to mislead relevant public as to product source, and therefore constituted trademark infringement.

Regarding damages, Chen claimed the “100 000+ units sold” figure was fake but failed to provide evidence, and thus bore the adverse consequences of inability to prove his case. Given that the right‑holder’s actual losses and the infringer’s profits were both difficult to calculate precisely, the court exercised discretion and set damages at RMB 30 000, considering the reputation of the “Xiaomi” trademark, Chen’s subjective fault, infringement pattern and enforcement costs.

III. Three Takeaways: Mandatory Lessons for E‑commerce Compliance

This case sounds the alarm for e‑commerce operators. The following points deserve attention.

First, “compatible with” does not equal “free to use the trademark”. Labeling “compatible with a certain brand” is normally legitimate commercial expression. However, visually weakening the qualifier and highlighting the brand name to mislead consumers about source exceeds the boundary of reasonable use and constitutes trademark infringement.

Second, “selling cheap” does not change the nature of infringement. Trademark infringement is not conditioned on product price. Infringement is established as long as the use is likely to cause public confusion about source.

Third, “fake sales figures” require evidential support. A defendant claiming that platform sales data is false shall provide corresponding evidence; otherwise the court will consider factors including page‑displayed data in its assessment.

Respecting trademark rights means respecting market order. A trademark is never just a combination of graphics and words; it connects to consumer trust and represents the brand’s continuous investment of time and resources. Respecting trademark rights protects that trust from abuse and upholds the most basic baseline of market transactions. No matter the scale of operation, integrity is the passport to business, not an option to be negotiated. Free‑riding through visual tricks may bring short‑term traffic and orders, but it is essentially a test of rules and an appropriation of others’ achievements. Once the surface is pierced and the substance is seen, it is no longer a marketing strategy issue but the starting point of legal liability. Ill‑gotten convenience will eventually be repaid — either in damages or in collapsed trust, and the latter is often harder to repair.