During China’s Fair‑Competition Policy Promotion Week 2026, the Supreme People’s Court released typical anti‑unfair‑competition cases, among which the “Kuangbiao” liquor bottle case was included. After the hit anti‑crime TV drama Kuangbiao (Rampage) became popular in early 2023, liquor products quickly “hitched its ride”, adopting the drama title, opening‑title font, character elements and drama stills for commercial marketing. The court finally made a negative evaluation: first‑instance damages of RMB 5 million, affirmed on appeal.

The first‑instance trial was heard by the Putuo District People’s Court of Shanghai, case No.(2023) Hu 0107 Min Chu No.14392. The second‑instance proceeding was heard by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, case No.(2025) Hu 73 Min Zhong No.120, with a hearing held on May 21, 2025. According to typical‑case disclosure by the Supreme People’s Court, the plaintiff is a technology company (one of the producers of Kuangbiao). Defendants include a management company, a liquor company (affiliated entities), and a beer manufacturer entrusted for production. The Supreme People’s Court anonymized party names when releasing the typical case; therefore, this article does not refer to specific enterprise names.

Clear Factual Chain: Not Merely Two Characters, but Full‑scale “Free‑riding” on Hit Drama

According to case facts disclosed by the Supreme People’s Court, the technology company is one of the producers of Kuangbiao and claims relevant intellectual‑property rights. Both the management company and liquor company were established while the drama was a big hit in 2023. They entrusted a beer manufacturer to produce multiple liquor goods under the “Kuangbiao” brand. Variant “Kuangbiao” characters, highly similar in font style to the drama opening titles, were prominently displayed on bottle bodies, bottle labels, caps and packaging boxes. The liquor company also registered “Kuangbiao” as its enterprise trade name, and promoted goods with protagonist names and drama stills in marketing materials.

Key Takeaways from Judicial Rules: Common Words May Acquire Distinctiveness Through Use

The word “Kuangbiao” cannot be monopolized simply because of the drama’s popularity. However, once a drama title forms a stable connection with a specific work and can identify commercial source, it may constitute an “influential commercial identifier”. When third parties apply such title to liquor bottles, packaging, posters and short‑video promotion, the core issue is no longer “whether this word can be used”, but “whether consumers will mistakenly believe it is an authorized or co‑branded product”.

The Trademark Law protects registered trademarks; the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law protects influential commercial identifiers capable of source identification. For common vocabulary, courts focus on actual usage evidence, communication intensity and audience perception.

Demonstrative Significance of Liability Allocation: Manufacturers Cannot Be Exempted by Passively Accepting Orders

The first‑instance judgment ordered the management company and liquor company to stop infringement, eliminate adverse impacts and pay RMB 5 million damages. The beer manufacturer, for failing to perform reasonable review obligations, bears joint‑and‑several liability for RMB 500,000 of the total compensation; the second‑instance judgment affirmed the ruling.

For entrusted production, OEM filling, design sampling and distribution channels: when encountering proposals marked “hit‑drama same‑style”, “opening‑title same font”, “character names + classic scenes”, enterprises cannot only check client payment status; they must also verify whether proper authorization is obtained.

Professional liquor manufacturers should at minimum require entrusting parties to provide complete authorization documents: proof of IP ownership of the TV drama, commercial‑use license for drama title, font authorization, still‑image authorization, and scope of co‑branded cooperation. Mass‑market launch without valid authorization may result in findings of failure to perform due‑diligence review and imposition of joint‑and‑several liability.

Real Compliance Action: Complete Penetrating Authorization Verification Before Product Launch

Brands shall verify four layers of documents: whether IP ownership and enforcement authorization of the TV drama cover the prosecuting plaintiff; who grants licenses for drama title, character names, lines, opening‑title fonts, posters and stills; whether licensed categories clearly cover liquor products and packaging; whether promotional scenarios including live‑stream sales, short‑video marketing, offline display and gifting are included within authorized scope.

Missing any layer of authorization means designs drawing on popular hits carry high confusion risks. Co‑branding compliance also requires clear written terms covering product categories, packaging positions, promotion channels, term and territory. Promotional materials shall pass legal review; enterprise trade names and store names shall not approximate popular IP for free‑riding purposes.

One‑sentence Industry Takeaway: Quick Profits by Free‑riding on Drama Titles Essentially Misappropriates Others’ Business Reputation

Pseudo‑co‑branding brings low‑cost customer acquisition in the short run, yet damages pricing for genuine authorized IP, erodes consumer trust, and pushes the industry into a vicious cycle of “chasing every popular IP”. Once lawsuits, product removal, refunds and liability claims arrive, losses usually far exceed formal licensing fees. Commercialization of film‑and‑television IP essentially sells public trust: audiences associate the title with a specific work, creative team, aesthetic standard and quality expectation.

Final Enlightenment: Popularity Fades, but Judicial Rules Remain

This case confirms that identifiable well‑known TV‑drama titles receive protection under the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law. Registering enterprise trade names, using full legal names or entrusting professional manufacturers cannot automatically eliminate free‑riding intent.

For content companies: preserve usage and popularity evidence in a timely manner. For liquor, food, gift manufacturers and MCN institutions: prioritize authorization status over “how trendy the design looks”. The market may follow hot trends, but others’ creative works cannot be treated as ready‑made labels for your product bottles.