/>iOn April 24, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) released the Typical Cases of Criminal IP Enforcement for 2024 (知识产权刑事保护典型案例). This batch was released to show how the newly-issued Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights applies in criminal cases. This batch involves several foreign IP owners including Lego and Universal Studios. In addition, two criminal trade secret theft cases made the list.
As jointly explained by the SPP and SPC:
Case 1
Case of Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. and Yao XX counterfeiting registered trademarks
【Basic Facts】
Lego and “LEGO Education” are registered trademark of Lego Co., Ltd., and the approved services are education, training, entertainment competitions, etc. The defendant, Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd., rented a store to operate the “LC Lego Robot Center”, and the defendant Yao was the actual operator of the company. From March to June 2021, Yao displayed the authorization letters, Lego Education coach qualification certificates and other documents purchased from others that counterfeited the registered trademarks of ” Lego” ” and “LEGO Education”, and used ” Lego” and other logos for store signs, decorations, posters, employee clothing, shopping mall signs, etc., to provide education and training services. Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. collected more than 510,000 RMB in training course fees, most of which was used by the company.
[Judgment Result]
The Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate accused the defendant Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. and the defendant Yao of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and filed a public prosecution with the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court. After trial, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court held that Shanghai XX Education Technology Co., Ltd. used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same service without the permission of the registered trademark owner, and Yao was the directly responsible supervisor of the unit, both of which constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and therefore sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” amended Article 213 of the Criminal Law, bringing the counterfeiting of registered service trademarks into the scope of regulation of the Criminal Law, and strengthening the criminal protection of registered trademarks. In this case, it was determined that the education and training services provided by the defendant unit and the services approved for use by the service registered trademark of the right holder were the same type of services, and the training fees collected by the defendant unit were used as the basis for conviction, which was in line with the provisions of the Criminal Law. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” further clarified the identification standards for “the same type of service” based on the actual situation such as the characteristics of the service industry, stipulated that the amount of illegal income was the standard for conviction of the crime of counterfeiting registered service trademarks, and further clarified that the service fees collected by the perpetrators were illegal income.
Case 2
Long et al. counterfeit registered trademark case
【Basic Facts】
The products approved for use by Rong’s registered trademark are “medical isolation gowns, surgical gowns”, etc. From December 2021 to January 2022, the defendants Long, Gao, Chen, Yuan, and Zeng, after planning, purchased protective clothing and packaging materials without the permission of Rong, the registered trademark owner, and packaged disposable medical protective clothing on their own, and sold them with Rong’s registered trademark attached. Among them, Long was responsible for contacting to purchase packaging materials, Gao, Chen, and Yuan were responsible for purchasing protective clothing, Yuan also provided an account for collecting payments, Zeng contacted private factories for OEM production of counterfeit medical protective clothing, and hired workers to package protective clothing. Long and others sold more than 40,000 sets of disposable medical protective clothing, with an illegal business amount of more than 580,000 RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Jiangxi Province, accused the defendant Long and others of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone. After trial, the People’s Court of Nanchang High-tech Industrial Development Zone held that the goods “disposable medical protective clothing” and “medical isolation clothing and surgical clothing” approved for the registered trademarks are basically the same in terms of product functions, uses, main raw materials, consumer objects, sales channels, etc., and the relevant public believes that they are the same kind of goods, which belongs to the “same kind of goods” stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law. Long and others used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the registered trademark owner, which constituted a joint crime, and the amount of illegal business was more than 580,000 RMB, which constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The identification of “the same kind of goods” is a difficult issue in handling criminal cases involving counterfeit registered trademarks. In practice, when the name of the goods produced and sold by the perpetrator is different from the name of the goods approved for use by the registered trademark of the right holder, if the two are the same or basically the same in terms of function, purpose, main raw materials, consumer objects, sales channels, etc., and the relevant public generally believes that they are the same kind of goods, they should be identified as “the same kind of goods”. In this case, the infringing goods and the goods approved for use by the registered trademark of the right holder are “the same kind of goods” in accordance with the law, and the defendants were accurately sentenced according to the law based on their roles in the joint crime, effectively cracking down on the illegal and criminal acts of manufacturing and selling counterfeit medical products. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” further clarifies the identification standards of “the same kind of goods” based on actual conditions. In addition, in order to accurately crack down on crimes of infringement of intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, the judicial interpretation clarifies the specific circumstances in which joint crimes are punished.
Case 3
Case of Lu XX et al. counterfeiting registered trademarks
【Basic Facts】
From November 2019 to August 2022, the defendant Lu XX and others, without the permission of the registered trademark right holder, commissioned others to produce trademarks such as “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS”, and produced magic robes, scarves, ties and other Universal Studios Harry Potter products with the above trademarks through self-processing, sewing and labeling, and then sold them, with an illegal business amount of more than 11.25 million RMB. The public security organs seized 25,730 counterfeit registered trademark products and 72,550 hang tags, collar labels, washing labels, etc. in the premises operated by Lu XX.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Tongzhou District, Beijing, accused the defendant Lu XX and others of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing. The People’s Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing held that the registered trademark owner registered trademarks such as “HARRY POTTER” and “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS”, and the alleged infringing mark added elements that lacked distinctive features after “UNIVERSAL STUDIOS”, which did not affect the distinctive features of the registered trademark and was an “identical trademark”. Lu XX and others used trademarks identical to their registered trademarks on the same kind of goods without the permission of the registered trademark owner, which constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
In order to further combat the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and unify and clarify the identification standards of “identical trademarks”, the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” clarified the identification standards of identical trademarks. In this case, the addition of elements lacking distinctive features to the alleged infringing mark does not affect the distinctive features of the registered trademark and should be identified as a trademark identical to the registered trademark, demonstrating the concept of strict intellectual property protection.
Case 4
Zhao XX and Zhang XX’s patent counterfeiting case
【Basic Facts】
The defendants Zhao XX and Zhang XX run a biotechnology company. Since 2021, the two have printed the invention patent number of a Chinese medicine research company’s “A method for preparing a purslane extract” on the cosmetics packaging produced by their company without the permission of the Chinese medicine research company, and sold cosmetics that counterfeit the above patent. Zhao and Zhang sold counterfeit cosmetics with the above patent for more than 990,000 RMB, and the value of the counterfeit cosmetics with the above patent that have not yet been sold is more than 570,000 RMB, and the total amount of illegal business is more than 1.56 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, accused the defendants Zhao and Zhang of patent counterfeiting and filed a public prosecution with the Baiyun District People’s Court of Guangzhou City. After trial, the Baiyun District People’s Court of Guangzhou City held that Zhao and Zhang had been operating a cosmetics production company for many years. They knew that the use of patent marks or patent numbers should be authorized by the patent owner, but they still marked other people’s patent numbers on the product packaging without the permission of the patent owner, misleading the public into believing that the cosmetics were patented products. This was an act of “counterfeiting other people’s patents” and the circumstances were serious, constituting the crime of patent counterfeiting, and therefore sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The crime of patent counterfeiting regulates the act of counterfeiting other people’s patents without the permission of the patent owner. Falsely marking other people’s patent numbers to mislead the public into believing that the products sold are legally produced and manufactured by the patent subject damages the legitimate rights and interests of the patent owner and disrupts the market economic order. If the circumstances are serious, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” clarifies the specific circumstances of counterfeiting other people’s patents and the standard for “serious circumstances” to strengthen criminal protection of patents.
Case 5
Copyright infringement case of Zhang and Sun
【Basic Facts】
Between the end of 2017 and January 2023, the defendants Zhang and Sun, etc., developed and operated a number of film and television aggregation apps for the purpose of profit. Zhang, Sun, etc. downloaded popular audiovisual works without the permission of the copyright owner and uploaded them to a rented cloud storage server, and purchased technical analysis services from others, and provided audiovisual works playback and download services to the public through the multiple apps they operated. Through the technical analysis service, the public can obtain the audiovisual works from the above-mentioned multiple apps involved in the case without jumping to the network platform of the relevant copyright owner. Zhang, Sun, etc. made profits by publishing paid advertisements and collecting advertising promotion fees in the multiple apps involved in the case. Among them, Zhang, Sun, etc. disseminated more than 72,000 audiovisual works through “hotlinking”.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Xinwu District, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, accused the defendants Zhang and Sun of copyright infringement and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City. The People’s Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City held that Zhang and Sun objectively made the relevant audiovisual works directly appear on the multiple apps involved in the case by “stealing links”, which was an act of “providing” works. The public was able to obtain the above-mentioned audiovisual works from the multiple apps involved in the case at a time and place selected by individuals and directly play and download them, infringing the copyright owner’s right to disseminate through information networks, which was an act of “disseminating to the public through information networks” as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. Zhang and Sun disseminated audiovisual works to the public through information networks for the purpose of profit without the permission of the copyright owner, which constituted the crime of copyright infringement and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” clearly stipulates that “dissemination to the public through information networks” is an implementation behavior, which is distinguished from “copying and distributing”. Without the permission of the copyright owner, “dissemination to the public through information networks” infringes the copyright owner’s information network dissemination right. According to the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights”, if a person provides works, audio and video products, and performances to the public by wire or wireless means without permission, so that the public can obtain them at the time and place of their choice, it shall be deemed as “dissemination to the public through information networks” as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. With the emergence of new technologies in the field of information dissemination, more and more technologies similar to “hotlinking” can avoid the link of uploading works, allowing users to obtain corresponding works, which is very harmful to society. Based on the specific methods of “hotlinking” and its social harm, this case is determined to be an information network dissemination behavior, which infringes the copyright owner’s information network dissemination right, which is conducive to accurately defining the nature of deep linking behaviors such as “hotlinking.”
Case 6
Liu XX’s and Liu YY’s copyright infringement case
【Basic Facts】
From March 2019 to July 2022, the defendant Liu XX, for the purpose of profit, without the permission of the copyright owner, made dongles to circumvent the technical protection measures of copyright, copied related software without authorization, and sold dongles and pirated software. Liu XX also instructed the defendant Liu YY to sell dongles and pirated software. During this period, Liu XX was responsible for making the dongles, copying pirated software, putting goods on shelves, sending express delivery, etc., and Liu YY was responsible for account customer service, collection, etc. The illegal business amounts involved by Liu XX and Liu YY were more than 1.06 million RMB and more than 140,000 RMB, respectively. The dongles sold by Liu XX and Liu YY can circumvent the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner for their software copyrights.
[Judgment Result]
The Third Branch of the Shanghai People’s Procuratorate accused the defendants Liu XX and Liu YY of copyright infringement and filed a public prosecution with the Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai. The Third Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai held that Liu XX and Liu YY, for the purpose of profit, deliberately circumvented the technical measures taken by the copyright owner to protect the copyright for their works without the permission of the copyright owner. In particular, Liu Sheng produced and sold dongles and pirated software, etc., and was at the source of the industrial chain in the relevant series of cases. The act of providing devices to circumvent technical measures has great social harm. Liu XX’s circumstances are particularly serious, and Liu YY’s circumstances are serious. Both of them have committed the crime of copyright infringement and were sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” includes the act of circumventing technological measures in the scope of regulation of the crime of copyright infringement, further strengthening the criminal protection of copyright. The social harm caused by providing devices for circumventing technological measures is great, and it is a criminal act stipulated in the Criminal Law. In this case, Liu XX and Liu YY were held criminally responsible for the crime of copyright infringement in accordance with the law, fully protecting the legitimate rights of copyright owners, and demonstrating the strength and determination to strengthen criminal judicial protection of intellectual property rights and serve the innovative development of the digital economy. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” clearly stipulates that the act of intentionally providing devices, components, and technical services for circumventing technological measures constitutes the crime of copyright infringement.
Case 7
Case of Lin XX et al. infringing copyright and Liu XX et al. selling infringing copies
【Basic Facts】
From 2019 to February 2023, the defendant Lin and others copied and distributed “scripted murder game” works by scanning, typesetting, printing and other means without the permission of the copyright owner, and the illegal business amount was more than 5.4 million RMB. The defendants Liu, Yang XX, and Yang YY knew that the “scripted murder games” sold by Lin and others were infringing copies without the permission of the copyright owner, but they still purchased them and sold them to the outside. Among them, Liu’s sales amount was more than 7.38 million RMB, and Yang XX’s and Yang YY’s sales amount was more than 3.12 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, accused the defendant Lin and others of copyright infringement, and the defendants Liu , Yang XX, and Yang YY of selling infringing copies, and filed public prosecutions with the Nanhu District People’s Court of Jiaxing City. The Nanhu District People’s Court of Jiaxing City held that Lin and others, for the purpose of profit, copied and distributed literary works and works of art without the permission of the copyright owner, which constituted copyright infringement; Liu, Yang XX, and Yang YY sold infringing copies, which constituted the crime of selling infringing copies, and sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” has amended the provisions for the crime of selling infringing copies, and changed “huge illegal proceeds” to “huge illegal proceeds or other serious circumstances”, expanding the circumstances for conviction. In order to further crack down on illegal and criminal acts of copyright infringement and improve the standards for conviction, the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” stipulates that “sales amount”, “value of goods” and “number of copies” are “other serious circumstances.” In order to further distinguish between the crime of copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies, the judicial interpretation clarifies that the “copying and distribution” in the crime of copyright infringement does not include the simple “distribution” behavior. Distributing infringing copies made by others by selling them should be deemed as the crime of selling infringing copies. This series of cases was convicted and sentenced for the crime of copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies according to the specific acts committed by each defendant, which is in line with the spirit of the judicial interpretation.
Case 8
Case of Wang XX infringing on trade secrets
【Basic Facts】
From April 2020 to April 2021, the defendant Wang worked in a certain automobile company in Wuhu. On March 23, 2021, Wang was preparing to switch to a new energy automobile company in Zhejiang to engage in electrical appliance research and development. In order to bring the switch control technology of a certain automobile company in Wuhu to a certain new energy automobile company in Zhejiang, on the evening of April 4, 2021, Wang dismantled the computer hard disk of the leaders of Group 1 and Group 2 of the Intelligent Vehicle Technology Center of a certain automobile company in Wuhu, which he had no authority to view, and took it away, and uploaded the technical information of the “center console switch assembly” and “one-button start ” of a certain model of automobile switch system in the computer hard disk to his own Baidu cloud account. After evaluation, the reasonable license fee for the above two technical information is 1.14 million RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone, Anhui Province, accused the defendant Wang of violating trade secrets and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone. The People’s Court of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone held that the technical information contained in the technical drawings of the “center console switch assembly” and “one-button start ” in the switch system of a certain model of a certain automobile company in Wuhu was a trade secret. Wang obtained trade secrets by dismantling and taking away the computer hard drive, which was an act of obtaining trade secrets by improper means of theft. The amount of loss can be determined according to the reasonable license fee of the trade secret. The circumstances were serious and constituted the crime of violating trade secrets, so he was sentenced to punishment.
【Typical significance】
The “Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (XI)” changed the standard for conviction of the crime of infringing on trade secrets from “causing major losses to the rights holder of the trade secrets” to “serious circumstances”, increasing the criminal protection of trade secrets. The person who obtains trade secrets by improper means does not have legal knowledge or possession of the trade secrets before, and his act of obtaining trade secrets by improper means is itself illegal and should be severely punished. If a trade secret is obtained by improper means, the amount of loss of the rights holder can be determined according to the reasonable license fee of the trade secret, and it is not required to use the trade secret for production and operation to cause profit loss. In this case, according to the provisions of the Criminal Law, Wang’s behavior was determined to be “serious circumstances” and he was sentenced in accordance with the law, demonstrating the strict protection of innovative achievements. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” further clarified the standard for determining “serious circumstances..
Case 9
Case of Luo XX and Sun XX spying, buying and illegally providing commercial secrets an overseas entity
【Basic Facts】
In August 2022, the defendant Sun accepted the commission of a foreign person and provided him with commercial information on new energy batteries of a certain technology company for a fee. After Sun discussed with the defendant Luo, Luo obtained the company’s new energy battery research and development data, future industrial layout and other commercial information from relevant personnel of a certain technology company through illegal means such as espionage and bribery, and Sun provided it to the foreign person. Sun received a remuneration of more than 110,000 RMB, of which 70,000 RMB was paid to Luo . In April 2023, Luo directly accepted the commission of the foreign person and again provided commercial information of a certain technology company and received a remuneration of 100,000 RMB.
[Judgment Result]
The People’s Procuratorate of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, accused the defendants Luo and Sun of spying, buying, and illegally providing commercial secrets for foreign countries, and filed a public prosecution with the People’s Court of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City. After trial, the People’s Court of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City held that the new energy battery research and development data and future industrial layout information illegally provided by Sun and Luo to foreign personnel were commercial secrets, and Luo and Sun constituted the crime of spying, buying, and illegally providing commercial secrets for foreign countries, and sentenced them to punishment.
【Typical significance】
In order to maintain a fair and competitive market economic order, the “Criminal Law Amendment (XI) of the People’s Republic of China” adds the crime of stealing, spying, buying, and illegally providing trade secrets from abroad, improves the criminal law network, and strengthens the criminal protection of trade secrets. This crime is a behavioral crime, and criminal liability can be pursued without requiring the circumstances to be serious. The “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights” stipulates the specific circumstances of the “serious circumstances” for the sentencing standard of this crime, which is consistent with the circumstances of conviction for the crime of infringing trade secrets, etc., to ensure the effective connection between the conviction and sentencing of the two crimes.
