In Jingdezhen’s ceramic industry, especially in blue‑and‑white porcelain sector, “Xiaoya” is a brand that has built high reputation and influence through years of operation and promotion. Nevertheless, a company holding the registered trademark “Xiaoya Zhencang (Xiaoya Collection)” sold tea sets bearing this mark on Douyin livestream rooms, and used sales scripts to imply connection with the right‑holder of the well‑known “Xiaoya” brand. This trademark free‑riding litigation ended with the court finding trademark infringement and unfair competition, awarding punitive damages of RMB 600,000, and the second‑instance judgment upheld the original ruling.

Basic Facts

Mr. Ruan obtained the trademark “Xiaoya” on June 28, 2010. Its approved goods under Class 21 include daily‑use ceramics, porcelain ornaments, porcelain/terracotta/glass statues, artworks, tea sets, household ceramic products and others. In January 2025, Mr. Ruan licensed the “Xiaoya” trademark to his company, and authorized the company to take action against infringements.

The defendant, Jiangxi Zhuomou Ceramic Culture Co., Ltd., obtained the registered trademark “Xiaoya Zhencang” on April 7, 2020. Its approved goods cover combs, brushes, toothbrushes and food thermal containers — tea sets or ceramic products are not included.

Infringement Facts and Disputed Issues

Starting from August 2025, the defendant sold tea sets with the bottom mark “Xiaoya Zhencang” in Douyin livestream rooms. During livestreams, anchors repeatedly mentioned or implied that the ceramic products sold were approved by Mr. Ruan. Consumers left messages in livestream rooms questioning the relationship between the defendant’s products and Mr. Ruan’s “Xiaoya” tea‑set brand.

After discovering the conduct, Mr. Ruan’s company sent a lawyer’s letter demanding cessation of infringement. The defendant ignored the notice and continued selling goods with confusing remarks in livestreams.

Subsequently, Mr. Ruan’s company filed a lawsuit against the defendant before the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Tribunal. Notably, the defendant kept livestream sales of the disputed infringing products even after the hearing commenced.

The defendant put forward three main defenses:

1. “Xiaoya Zhencang” differs from “Xiaoya” in text composition and pronunciation, so they are not similar trademarks.
2. The two marks will not cause consumer confusion.
3. The “Xiaoya” trademark lacks reputation and legal stability.

Finding of Trademark Infringement

The court held that through years of continuous operation and promotion, the “Xiaoya” trademark has acquired distinctiveness and source‑identifying function within the ceramic sector, and has established close association with Mr. Ruan’s company. The core distinctive element of “Xiaoya Zhencang” lies in “Xiaoya”; adding the suffix “Zhencang (Collection)” does not enhance its distinctiveness. Despite differences in font and layout, the two marks share identical core pronunciation and core Chinese meaning.

The defendant sold tea sets marked “Xiaoya Zhencang” in livestreams, which has caused actual consumer confusion and associative misidentification. More importantly, the defendant used “Xiaoya Zhencang” on ceramic tea sets, which goes beyond the approved goods of its own trademark registration, and this conduct constitutes trademark infringement.

In addition, during livestream sales, the defendant repeatedly used terms related to the plaintiff such as “Three Major Kilns”, “Master Ruan’s Kiln”, showing obvious subjective intent to free‑ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill, which also constitutes unfair competition.

The court further pointed out that the defendant kept selling the disputed goods via livestream even after receiving the lawyer’s letter and after case hearings. It demonstrates strong subjective malice, long‑lasting infringement and severe harmful consequences. Accordingly, punitive damages were applied.

Judgment

First‑instance judgment: The Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Tribunal ordered the defendant to cease infringement, issue a statement to eliminate adverse impacts, and pay compensation of RMB 600,000.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendant appealed to the Jiangxi Higher People’s Court. The second‑instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

This case delivers several noteworthy judicial findings:

First, the approved scope of a trademark defines its right boundary. Although the defendant owns the registered trademark “Xiaoya Zhencang”, its approved goods are combs, thermal containers and the like, excluding tea sets. This means even trademark owners may commit infringement if they use their trademark outside the approved commodity scope. This is critical for understanding the boundary of exclusive right to registered trademarks.

Second, the suffix “Zhencang (Collection)” cannot create distinguishing effect. The court clarified that adding descriptive suffixes such as “Zhencang” on identical or similar goods will not change the core identifying part of a trademark, and may still lead to trademark similarity.

Third, continuing infringement during litigation can trigger punitive damages. Similar to other recent punitive‑damage cases, failure to stop infringement after warning or litigation is a key factor for courts to find subjective malice and increase compensation. In this case, the defendant kept livestream sales after receiving the lawyer’s letter and after the hearing, which directly triggered the application of punitive damages.