{"id":139130,"date":"2026-04-10T15:21:03","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T15:21:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=139130"},"modified":"2026-04-10T15:21:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T15:21:03","slug":"china-trademark-disputes","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/china-trademark-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"China: Trademark Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-139130","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-trademark-disputes","jurisdictions-china"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">China Patent Agent (HK) Ltd<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/04\/20211119103050Logo-China-Patent-Agent-H.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">China Patent Agent (HK) Ltd<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/04\/20211119103050Logo-China-Patent-Agent-H.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Trademark Disputes laws and regulations applicable in China<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To represent a client before Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter, do you require a Power of Attorney \u2013 and if so, what are the execution formalities required by your courts?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To represent a client before a Chinese court in a trademark infringement matter, a Power of Attorney is required.<\/p>\n<p>The Power of Attorney should be executed in accordance with the laws of the party&#8217;s home country. For example, it may be signed by the party&#8217;s legal or authorized representative or affixed with the party&#8217;s officially registered seal. For documents originating from a foreign country, notarization and legalization \/ apostille are required. Furthermore, all foreign-language documents should be translated into Chinese by a translation agency recognized by the Chinese court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement in your jurisdiction to send a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing proceedings for infringement? What are the consequences for a trademark owner who chooses not to send a pre-action letter?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, it is not a mandatory legal requirement to send a cease and desist letter before commencing trademark infringement proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>However, from a strategic perspective, sending such a letter is generally recommended because a cease and desist letter serves to put the accused infringer on actual notice of the trademark rights. If the recipient continues the accused infringing activity after receiving the letter, such evidence may support a finding of &#8220;intentional&#8221; infringement, which is a prerequisite for claiming punitive damages under the Trademark Law.<\/p>\n<p>It should be noted that a cease and desist letter is merely one piece of evidence to demonstrate the infringer&#8217;s subjective intent, rather than a decisive factor. Courts will also comprehensively consider other factors such as whether the parties are competitors in the same industry, whether the infringer has previously been subject to administrative penalties, and the reputation of the trademark in question.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, is there a risk that a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats? What steps should a trademark owner take to ensure any cease and desist letter does not expose the trademark owner to any liability.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, in China, there is a risk that a poorly drafted or improperly sent pre-action letter (also known as a cease and desist letter or warning letter) may expose the trademark owner to claims of unjustified threats. Such claims may be framed as commercial defamation under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.<\/p>\n<p>To ensure that a pre-action letter is deemed legitimate rather than an abusive conduct, the trademark owner should consider the following measures:<\/p>\n<p>(1) Before sending the letter, the trademark owner should reconfirm the validity and stability of the trademark. If the trademark is subject to ongoing revocation or invalidation proceedings, the risk associated with sending the letter will increase significantly.<\/p>\n<p>(2) All statements in the letter should be truthful and factually supported. Exaggerated or subjective language should be avoided. The letter should not contain statements that deliberately disparage the recipient.<\/p>\n<p>(3) The letter should provide sufficient information to support the claim, including identifying the trademark right and specifying the alleged infringing activity. A comparison or explanation of how the infringement occurs can help demonstrate good faith. Vague accusations lacking supporting details are more likely to be viewed as misleading.<\/p>\n<p>(4) Care should be taken in selecting recipients. Sending the letter directly to the alleged infringer (such as the manufacturer or seller) is generally considered prudent, whereas sending it to third parties, such as customers or business partners, may be construed as an attempt to disrupt the recipient\u2019s business relationships rather than a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute.<\/p>\n<p>(5) It is strongly recommended to preserve key evidence of infringement\u2014for example, through notarized purchases or screenshots\u2014prior to sending the letter. Once alerted, the infringer may destroy evidence or temporarily cease operations, making it more difficult to build a case later.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings prior to commencing infringement proceedings? If so, what is the minimum expectation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No, it is not mandatory for parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings before filing a trademark infringement lawsuit in China. However, Chinese courts are currently actively promoting the principle of &#8220;prioritizing mediation.&#8221; For example, after a lawsuit is filed but before it is formally accepted by a court as a litigation case, the court frequently proposes pre-litigation mediation. This process aims to resolve disputes efficiently. Participation is generally voluntary, but it is a common and encouraged step in the case flow of many Chinese courts, especially in IP cases. Therefore, while not a legal prerequisite, parties should be prepared for the possibility of the court suggesting mediation at the very outset of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are claims for trademark infringements heard before a general commercial Court or a specialist Court focused on Intellectual Property disputes? Are trademark infringement claims decided by a judge or by a jury?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>China&#8217;s court system is primarily structured into four levels, including Basic People&#8217;s Courts, Intermediate People&#8217;s Courts, Higher People&#8217;s Courts, and the Supreme People&#8217;s Court. While China does not have commercial courts, it has established specialized intellectual property courts, including the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, and Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court, which operate at the same level as Intermediate People&#8217;s Courts. Additionally, some courts have set up Intellectual Property Tribunals within them, and the Supreme People&#8217;s Court has also established an Intellectual Property Court therein. In principle, first-instance trademark infringement cases are heard by Intellectual Property Courts or the Intermediate People&#8217;s Courts in regions without IP Courts. For cases below certain jurisdictional thresholds based on subject matter value and complexity, the Basic People&#8217;s Courts specifically designated by the Supreme People&#8217;s Court have the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>China&#8217;s legal system does not use juries for litigation. Lawsuits, including trademark infringement disputes, are adjudicated by a judge or a panel of judges. Although China does not use a jury system, the People&#8217;s Assessors System allows non-judicial citizens to participate in the trial activities alongside judges. Unless otherwise stipulated by law, people&#8217;s assessors exercise equal rights with judges.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a time limit for commencing trademark infringement proceedings once the facts giving rise to the infringement are known to the trademark owner. After how long would such a claim be time-barred? What action would a trade mark owner have to know to give rise to such a claim being time-barred (for example, is it knowing that a mark in question is in use or is it knowing that a trade mark application has been filed and\/or registered?)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The statute of limitations for commencing trademark infringement proceedings is three (3) years. This period begins from the date when the trademark owner (or the interested party) knows, or should have known, of the infringement and the identity of the infringer.<\/p>\n<p>For ongoing infringements, if the infringing act began more than three years prior but continues at the time the lawsuit is filed, the statute of limitations defence does not prevent the plaintiff from filing suit. However, damages are recoverable only for the three-year period immediately preceding the filing date of the lawsuit; any earlier damages are barred. For completed infringements, if the infringement ceased more than three years before filing, the entire claim is time-barred.<\/p>\n<p>The limitation period can be interrupted (restarted) if the trademark owner asserts its rights, such as by filing a lawsuit, applying for mediation, or making a demand to the infringer, or if the infringer agrees to perform its obligations. When an interruption occurs, the limitation period starts anew.<\/p>\n<p>The limitation period is triggered only when the trademark owner knows or should know about the actual use of the infringing mark in commerce, not merely knowledge of a trademark application or registration by a third party. Filing or registration alone does not constitute an actionable infringement, and therefore does not start the limitation period.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction does the law protect unregistered trademarks of any kind, including by way of passing off, unfair competition or protection of trade dress. What are the criteria for their subsistence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, the law does provide protection for unregistered trademarks, primarily through the following two legal mechanisms: The Trademark Law for unregistered well-known trademarks, and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for trade dress and other indications that have acquired market recognition. The criteria for their subsistence differ based on the underlying legal basis.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1) Protection of Unregistered Well-Known Trademarks<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>An unregistered <strong>well-known<\/strong> trademark refers to a mark that is widely known to the relevant sector of the public in China, even though it has not completed the registration procedure. The owner of such a mark is vested with the rights to: (i) prevent others from registering an identical or similar mark; (ii) request the invalidation of a mark that has been registered; and (iii) demand cessation of infringement.<\/p>\n<p>When determining whether a trademark qualifies as an unregistered well-known trademark, Chinese courts typically consider the following factors: (1). The extent of knowledge of the trademark among the relevant public; (2). The duration of continuous use of the trademark in China; (3). The duration, extent, geographical scope and investment of promotion; (4). The sales revenue and profits of goods bearing the trademark; (5). The owner&#8217;s management and maintenance of its rights, such as actively protecting rights through complaints or litigation.<\/p>\n<p>Under the current legal framework, the protection of an unregistered well-known trademark is confined to identical or similar goods or services; it does not extend to <strong>cross-class protection<\/strong> (dissimilar goods\/services). This contrasts with a registered well-known trademark, which does enjoy cross-class protection. However, it is noteworthy that the Draft Amendment to the Trademark Law (published in December 2025) proposes to remove the &#8220;registered&#8221; restriction for cross-class protection. If enacted, a well-known trademark could be protected on dissimilar goods or services, even if it is not registered, which significantly expands the rights of unregistered well-known mark owners.<\/p>\n<p>Although current laws and judicial interpretations do not explicitly stipulate the rules for calculating <strong>damages<\/strong> in cases involving unregistered well-known trademarks, judicial practice has established that infringement causing harm to the owner entitles the owner to claim damages. In such cases, courts have held that the infringer must not only cease the infringement but also bear liability for compensation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2) Protection of &#8220;Influential&#8221; Packaging and Decoration<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This is the closest equivalent to the protection of &#8220;trade dress&#8221; in Chinese legal framework. Under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it is prohibited to use a &#8220;influential&#8221; name, packaging or decoration of other&#8217;s so as to cause confusion\u2014i.e., believing it is someone else&#8217;s goods or that there is a specific association with another party.<\/p>\n<p>The constitutive elements for subsistence of this protection include &#8220;Awareness (Influence)&#8221; and &#8220;Distinctiveness&#8221;. Awareness means that the packaging or decoration should be known to the relevant public in China. It may be demonstrated by evidence of the duration, scope, and volume of sales, the duration, extent, and geographic range of promotional activities, and records of protection. Distinctiveness means that the packaging or decoration should possess distinctive features that enable it to distinguish the source of the goods. The Judicial Interpretation of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law explicitly lists circumstances with <strong>no<\/strong> distinctiveness: (1) Generic names, graphics, or models of goods; (2) Marks merely directly indicating the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity, or other characteristics of the goods; (3) Shapes that are inherent to the nature of the goods themselves, shapes necessary to achieve technical effects, or shapes that give the goods substantial value; (4) Other circumstance lacking distinctiveness. Except for the circumstances described in (3), which are ineligible for protection through use, other circumstances may obtain protection if, after long-term use, they have acquired the ability to distinguish the source of goods and have achieved a certain level of awareness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction will the Court hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for passing off,unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising, or does a claimant need to bring such claims in a separate cause of action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, claims for registered trademark infringement, unfair competition, infringement of trade dress, and misleading advertising can be heard in parallel by the same court, as long as the claims arise from the same accused infringing act or related series of acts by the same defendant(s). The prerequisite for such parallel proceedings is that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over all the claims asserted. While multiple causes of action are permitted, the court will evaluate each claim independently under its respective legal framework.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, do your Courts share jurisdiction with your Trade Mark Office, such that parties need to seek to seize the forum they prefer first in time, or does the Court take precedence and intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings (for example relating to invalidity or revocation of registered trade mark) which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Generally, in China, both courts and trademark administrative enforcement agencies have the jurisdiction to adjudicate trademark infringement disputes, while the Registry proceedings are primarily examined by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) (parties dissatisfied with the administrative decision may file administrative litigation with the court).<\/p>\n<p><strong>1) Trademark infringement disputes<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In China, courts and trademark administrative enforcement agencies (the Market Supervision Administration) exercise concurrent jurisdiction over trademark infringement disputes. The rights holder can choose to file a lawsuit with the court or file a complaint with the administrative agency. There is no strict &#8220;first-to-file&#8221; exclusivity rule between the two. However, pursuant to the Trademark Law, when an administrative agency is investigating a complaint case and the people&#8217;s court has also accepted a trademark infringement lawsuit for the same dispute, the administrative agency may suspend the investigation. This mechanism reflects a preference for judicial proceedings, though the administrative agency has the discretion on suspension.<\/p>\n<p>A difference between administrative proceedings and civil litigation proceedings is that administrative proceedings <strong>cannot<\/strong> provide remedy for economic losses suffered by the parties. The administrative agencies may only determine infringement and impose administrative penalties. For economic compensation, the administrative agency may only conduct mediation; if mediation fails, the rights holder must resort to civil litigation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2) Trademark registry proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Trademark invalidation and revocation cases are primarily handled through the trademark reexamination proceedings of the CNIPA. Parties dissatisfied with the CNIPA&#8217;s decisions may file administrative lawsuits with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.<\/p>\n<p>If a defendant in an infringement action files a request for invalidation, the court may exercise its discretion to decide whether to suspend the infringement litigation and wait for the outcome of the administrative proceedings\u2014however, this is not a mandatory rule. Courts do not directly declare registered trademarks invalid, as this should be determined through administrative procedures. Notably, however, courts may decline to enforce a registered trademark that is manifestly improper in infringement litigation, such as in cases involving bad-faith registration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the defendant has a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark being asserted against it (either on the basis of earlier rights or as a result of non-use by the trademark proprietor), does the counterclaim become part of the infringement action, so that both issues are heard by the same Court within a single action, with the Court making a determination at its conclusion, or are the validity issues bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings? If in your jurisdiction validity issues are bifurcated, what are the practical consequences of this from a timing perspective? For example, does this mean that a Court will stay the infringement claim and proceed with the validity attack first to avoid finding a trademark infringed, only to have a separate Court find the trademark invalid at a later date?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The counterclaim is not part of the infringement actions, and it will be bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings. Invalidations and cancellations shall be filed with the CNIPA, and if any party is unsatisfied with the decision of CNIPA, the party can further seek judicial reexaminations (administrative litigation) with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (first instance) and Beijing Higher People&#8217;s Court (second instance).<\/p>\n<p>In the infringement action, if the parties file invalidation or cancellation request against the trademark in question, the judge has discretion on whether to suspend the infringement proceedings, based on factors such as the stability of the trademark right, the balance between efficiency and equity, and whether the parties acted in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>The invalidation proceedings and cancellation proceedings have different effects on the infringement proceeding. For the invalidation proceedings, if the trademark is found invalid, it is considered invalid\/non-existent from the very beginning. Article 47 of the Chinese Trademark Law provides that the final result of trademark invalidation does not have a retroactive effect on a final and enforced infringement judgment, ruling, mediation statement, or administrative decision, which means that the result of the invalidation proceedings will no longer affect the result of the infringement action after the infringement judgment has become effective and been enforced. To remedy possible unfairness, the provision further provides that if the trademark registrant acted in bad faith and caused losses to others, compensation shall be paid; if it would be manifestly unfair not to refund the infringement damages, such amounts shall also be refunded in full or in part.<\/p>\n<p>For the cancellation proceedings, the trademark remains valid until the day it is officially declared cancelled by the CNIPA. The cancellation ruling will not affect the infringing acts that happened before the declaration date. Therefore, it is generally not an effective measure to take when faced with infringement actions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does a defendant have a defence of using a mark honestly and concurrently available to them?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Chinese trademark law provides several statutory defences that align with the concepts of honest and concurrent use, including honestly using another registered trademark, the descriptive fair use defence, the prior use defence, and the indicative use of a trademark. Specifically:<\/p>\n<p>(1). The defendant can argue that it is honestly using another registered trademark that the defendant rightfully owns or is authorized to use, and such use is within the approved scope of goods\/services.<\/p>\n<p>(2). According to Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Chinese Trademark Law, a defendant is not liable for infringement upon a registered trademark when it uses a descriptive term in the trademark that merely indicates the kind, quality, intended purpose, or other characteristics of their goods or services in good faith.<\/p>\n<p>(3) Paragraph 3 of Article 59 of the Chinese Trademark Law also provides a defence of prior use, allowing a person who has continuously used a trademark identical or similar to a registered trademark on the same or similar goods\/services before the filing date of the registered trademark and has gained a certain level of influence to continue using it within the original scope. The trademark owner may request that this prior user add a distinguishing mark to avoid confusion.<\/p>\n<p>(4). While not explicitly stipulated by laws, Chinese courts have also recognized the defence of &#8220;indicative use&#8221;, which allows a third party to use a trademark in good faith to indicate the purpose or intended use of its own product or service, such as a repair shop using a car brand&#8217;s trademark to show they service that brand, as this use is considered honest and does not create confusion about the source of the goods\/services.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">When considering the validity of a registered trade mark, does the Court consider whether the trade mark has been registered in bad faith? If so, what actions would indicate this bad faith?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Chinese courts consider bad faith registration when determining the validity of a trademark. However, it should be noted that the court will not directly rule a trademark as invalid. The validity of a trademark shall be ruled by the CNIPA instead of a court. Any party may file an invalidation application with the TRAB on the ground that a trademark is registered in bad faith. If either party is dissatisfied with the TRAB\u2019s ruling on bad faith and trademark invalidation, it may file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (first instance) and the Beijing Higher People&#8217;s Court (second instance). The court will review whether the TRAB\u2019s finding of bad faith (or non-bad faith) is legally and factually sufficient, and make a judicial ruling to uphold or revoke the TRAB\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<p>The core of determining bad faith in trademark application and registration is that the applicant has no bona fide intention to actually use the trademark for legitimate business operations, and subjectively intends to misappropriate, free-ride on or infringe the prior trademark rights or commercial goodwill of others, or to seek improper profits through trademark hoarding, cybersquatting, etc. The determination is based on objective acts of the applicant (rather than mere subjective statements), combined with factors such as the reputation of the cited mark, the relationship between the parties, and the applicant\u2019s subsequent conduct of the trademark.<\/p>\n<p>In trademark infringement civil litigation, the court may reject the proprietor&#8217;s claims in infringement lawsuits when it finds bad faith in the application and registration of the trademark. In practice, courts mainly find bad faith in actions of copying or imitating trademarks owned by others, systematic or on a large scale, particularly those with a certain reputation, with the intent to profit from them, such as for the purpose of selling them to the original brand owners or demanding licensing fees.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the main objective in commencing infringement proceedings is to secure an injunction, is a claimant required to state how much their claim is worth at the point their claim is issued?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Chinese civil procedure, the claimant is not required to state the monetary value of their claim when their main objective is to secure an injunction. This rule applies to trademark infringement and all other intellectual property infringement lawsuits. Damages are a discretionary remedy in intellectual property infringement litigation, while an injunction (including interim injunctive relief, and permanent injunctive relief in the judgment) is an independent claim for relief. The claimant may file a lawsuit with an injunction as the sole core claim, or it may also claim &#8220;injunction + compensation for damages&#8221; at the same time. The people&#8217;s court will accept the case as long as the claim for injunction is clear and the facts and grounds are sufficient.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to seek a preliminary injunction in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the criteria a trademark owner needs to establish and is there a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the defendant if the Court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. It is possible to seek a preliminary injunction in Chinese trademark infringement proceedings. In China\u2019s judicial framework, this remedy is statutorily defined as pre-litigation or in-litigation property or behavioural preservation, and its application criteria, security requirements and compensation rules for wrongful injunction are clearly stipulated in judicial interpretations and judicial practice.<\/p>\n<p>According to Article 7 of the Supreme People&#8217;s Court&#8217;s Judicial Interpretation on Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Review of Behaviour Preservation Cases in Intellectual Property Disputes, when determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court should comprehensively consider factors including but not limited to: 1) whether the applicant&#8217;s request has a factual and legal basis, including whether the intellectual property right sought to be protected is stable in validity; 2) whether failure to take the measure would cause irreparable harm to the applicant&#8217;s legitimate rights and interests or make the judgment difficult to enforce; 3) whether the harm to the applicant from not taking the measure outweighs the harm to the respondent from taking the measure; and 4) whether taking the measure would harm the public interest.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, providing security is a requirement for a trademark owner to apply for a preliminary injunction. According to Article 11 of the above-mentioned Judicial Interpretation, the amount of the security provided by the applicant shall be equivalent to the losses the respondent may suffer from the enforcement of the preservation measure, including reasonable losses such as the lost sales revenue of the products involved and storage costs. If the court later finds no infringement following a substantive hearing, the respondent can claim damages caused by the wrongful injunction from the applicant by initiating a separate compensation lawsuit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is a licensee (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of a registered trademark entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement? Does the trademark proprietor need to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and does it have an effect whether the licensee is registered before the local Trademark Registry?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, licensees of a registered trademark are entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement, but the scope of their specific entitlements varies based on the type of license.<\/p>\n<p>Article 4 of the Supreme People&#8217;s Court&#8217;s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Trademark Civil Dispute Cases categorizes trademark licenses into three types: exclusive license (the licensee is granted with the exclusive right to use the trademark on the agreed goods\/services within the agreed scope\u2014the trademark proprietor is not entitled to use the mark itself under this license), sole license (the licensee and the trademark proprietor are both permitted to use the mark, no third party is authorized to use it), and non-exclusive license.<\/p>\n<p>An exclusive licensee can file a lawsuit independently. A sole licensee can file a lawsuit jointly with the trademark registrant, or file a lawsuit independently if the registrant doesn&#8217;t file one. A non-exclusive licensee can only file a lawsuit if expressly authorized by the trademark registrant.<\/p>\n<p>The trademark proprietor is generally not mandatorily required to join the proceedings. The proprietor may voluntarily join the proceedings as a co-plaintiff to claim its own damages or exercise its rights as the trademark owner.<\/p>\n<p>Recordal of the trademark license with the CNIPA is not a prerequisite for the licensee&#8217;s standing to sue. Absence of recordal does not affect the validity of the license agreement or affect the licensee&#8217;s right to sue, unless the parties agree otherwise. However, recordal brings important procedural and evidentiary advantages in litigation. A recorded license is prima facie evidence of the existence and validity of the license in court\u2014 the licensee does not need to provide additional evidence to prove the authenticity of the license. For an unrecorded license, the licensee must bear the burden of proof to submit sufficient evidence (e.g., the signed license contract, payment records of license fees, evidence of actual use of the mark) to prove the existence of a valid license, otherwise the court may reject its claim for lack of standing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant\u2019s mark and the trademark owner\u2019s registered mark, does the proprietor need to demonstrate that confusion has occurred or simply that there is a risk of confusion? What is the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, the proprietor is only required to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion (risk of confusion), and does not need to show that actual confusion has already occurred.<\/p>\n<p>For the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement, according to Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People&#8217;s Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes arising from Trademarks, trademarks are considered identical when the trademarks have basically no difference in visual appearance, and trademarks are considered similar when the marks are sufficiently alike in the appearance, pronunciation, meaning of the characters, the composition or colour of the graphics, the overall structure formed by the combination of these elements, or the three-dimensional shape or colour combination so as to easily mislead the relevant public about the source of the goods\/services or believe there is a specific connection with the registered trademark owner&#8217;s goods.<\/p>\n<p>Article 10 further elaborates that the determination must be made from the perspective of the relevant public of ordinary attention, by comparing the marks in their entirety and in isolation, with due regard to the distinctiveness and reputation of the registered trademark.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible to rely on post-sale confusion as a means of securing a finding of trade mark infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Though post-sale confusion is not explicitly provided for in laws or regulations, according to the judicial practices of Chinese courts, post-sale confusion has been recognized as one of the bases for finding trademark infringement in recent years.<\/p>\n<p>In a landmark case ruled by the Supreme People&#8217;s Court: (2020) SPC IP Civil Final No. 4768, the defendant used a mark identical to the plaintiff\u2019s registered &#8220;Joker&#8221; pattern on poker cards inside a non\u2011transparent box, and argued no infringement because consumers could not see the mark at the time of sale. The Supreme People&#8217;s Court rejected the argument and ruled that infringement could be established based on post\u2011sale confusion: consumers would see the mark when using the cards and consider that cards with the same or similar \u2018Joker\u2019 pattern are related to the proprietor&#8217;s products, and thus would likely be confused about the source of the products.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, post\u2011sale confusion is sufficient to satisfy the \u201clikelihood of confusion\u201d requirement and constitutes trademark infringement in China.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction what type of disclosure or discovery is typically ordered by the Court in respect of trademark infringement actions from both parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In China, there is NO formal discovery or disclosure procedure similar to common law systems. Instead, evidence submission is party-driven and court-supervised under a judge-led evidence system following the Civil Procedure Law and related judicial interpretations. Both parties are obliged to submit all evidence supporting their claims\/defences, and the court facilitates an exchange and cross-examination of evidence. In practice, it is relatively rare for the court to collect evidence. Discovery and submission of evidence are generally done by the parties.<\/p>\n<p>For trademark infringement cases, the evidence from the plaintiff normally includes trademark registration certificates, licenses, evidence of use and reputation of their trademark, evidence of damages or illegal gains, and most critically, evidence of the alleged infringing activities, which usually include notarized purchase of infringing products, sales invoices, advertising materials, and website screenshots. The court may also order the collection of evidence upon the parties&#8217; request or <em>ex officio<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>From the defendant, the evidence normally includes evidence of the legality of trademark use (authorization or licensing), scope of use as a defence (account books, business records, sales data, production quantity).<\/p>\n<p>Article 63 of the Chinese Trademark Law also provides that if the proprietor has diligently exerted efforts in producing evidence while the account books or related materials are mainly under the defendant&#8217;s control, the court may order the defendant to submit them; failure to do so allows the court to determine the damages based on the proprietor&#8217;s claims and evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What type of expert evidence is permitted by the Court in your jurisdiction? Does the Court accept consumer surveys and are there specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. Do the parties need to request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Chinese courts permit various types of expert evidence in trademark infringement actions. This primarily includes testimony from expert witnesses engaged by the parties, forensic identification reports, economic analysis to quantify damages, expert opinions on market investigation, consumer surveys, etc.<\/p>\n<p>Consumer surveys are accepted and admissible by the courts as evidence. While there are no specific legislative rules governing the admissibility of consumer surveys, certain criteria are generally followed: 1) The survey must target the relevant public; 2) The sample must be sufficient, representative, and randomly selected; 3) The questionnaire must be neutral, objective, and non-leading; 4) The methodology and process must be scientific, complete, and transparent; and 5) The survey institution and investigator should be independent and impartial.<\/p>\n<p>The Chinese Civil Procedure Law does not explicitly require parties to seek prior permission to introduce survey evidence. It is required to submit the survey evidence in the initial evidence submission or during the evidence exchange phase ordered by the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does evidence submitted by your client in trademark infringement proceedings have to be accompanied with a statement of truth or other similar declaration?  Which party is typically responsible for signing the statement of truth (or similar), the entity itself or the entity's representatives?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Chinese law, evidence submitted in trademark infringement proceedings is not required to be accompanied by a statement of truth or similar declaration. However, parties must submit evidence in good faith and bear legal responsibility for false evidence. Evidence is typically submitted together with a list signed\/sealed by the party&#8217;s legal representative or authorized agent and\/or stamped with the party\u2019s official seal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment and\/or strike out of an infringement claim? What are the legal criteria for a Court to grant summary judgment?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No, a claimant cannot seek summary judgment in the strict common\u2011law sense for trademark infringement claims under Chinese law. China\u2019s Civil Procedure Law does not have a summary judgment procedure equivalent to that in common\u2011law jurisdictions (e.g., the UK or US) that allows a court to enter judgment without a full trial where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. However, Chinese courts may use expedited procedures (summary procedure and small\u2011claims procedure) for simple cases, which are distinct from summary judgment.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the legal criteria for expedited procedures, for trademark infringement cases, a court may apply summary procedure or small\u2011claims procedure (not summary judgment) if the case meets the following criteria under the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations: 1) the facts are clear, 2) the rights and obligations are unambiguous, and 3) the dispute is minor and amount in dispute is relatively small.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it typically take to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from issue of the claim, through to first instance decision? What is the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Time limit for trial of First instance: In accordance with Article 287 of the Civil Procedure Law, summary procedure shall be concluded within 3 months, and ordinary procedure within 6 months, both of which may be extended upon approval; in judicial practice, 3-6 months for simple cases and 6-12 months for complicated ones. The time limits for trial shall not apply to foreign-related civil cases.<\/p>\n<p>Legal costs: Court official fee of RMB 1,000 per trademark infringement case for no claimed damages, or calculated on a progressive scale for cases with damages claimed; there is no statutory standard for attorney fees.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a first instance decision, is it possible for either party to appeal the decision? What are the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged? Is it necessary to request permission to appeal, or are appeals automatically permissible? If either party file an appeal, is the enforcement of the first instance decision stayed pending the outcome of the appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Both parties have the statutory right to appeal without court permission, with an appeal period of 15 days from the date of service of the judgment for Chinese parties and 30 days for overseas parties. Grounds for appeal include: 1) Erroneous finding of facts or insufficient evidence; 2) Erroneous application of law, and 3) Violation of trial procedures in the original judgment or ruling.<\/p>\n<p>An appeal generally stays the enforcement of the first instance decision. The first instance judgment does not become legally effective or enforceable until the appeal proceedings are concluded.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the parties have been involved in a dispute before the local Trademark Office, what relevance does this have on later infringement proceedings? For example where trademark owner (A) may have already sought to oppose the registration of a third party (B\u2019s) mark in proceedings before the local Trade Mark Office, is the trademark owner estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trade mark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Trademark owner (A) is entitled to file an invalidation action against a third party&#8217;s (B&#8217;s) registered trademark with the same grounds as its previously unsuccessful opposition. The opposition decision does not bind examiners of the CNIPA from assessing the validity of the same trademark on the same grounds in subsequent proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does the Court consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding, or will any damages be assessed after the Court has reached a decision on liability? How are damages for trademark infringement proceedings typically assessed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Chinese courts generally hear the determination of infringement liability and the ascertainment of compensation amount together in the same litigation proceeding. However, the Civil Procedural Law also allows a court to render a partial judgment on the part of the case for which the facts have already been clarified; namely, a court may issue a partial judgment on liability for infringement first, and then proceed to determine the amount of damages in a separate hearing later.<\/p>\n<p>Compensation for trademark infringement is calculated in the following statutory order of priority: (1). The actual loss suffered by the right holder; (2). The illegal gains obtained by the infringer from the infringement; (3). A reasonable multiple of the trademark licensing fee by reference; (4). Statutory compensation of not more than RMB 5 million, which the court determines at its discretion by considering the infringement circumstances, the popularity of the trademark, the subjective fault of the infringer and other relevant factors.<\/p>\n<p>For malicious infringement with serious circumstances, punitive damages may be available and the amount of damages may be determined at not less than one time but not more than five times the amount determined in accordance with the aforesaid methods (1) to (3).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In addition to an injunction and damages, what other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In addition to injunction (cessation of infringement) and damages, the following civil remedies are available in trademark infringement proceedings: (1). Destruction of infringing goods, materials, and special tools for manufacturing infringing goods; (2). Apology and elimination of adverse effects, applicable where the infringement act has damaged the goodwill of the trademark right holder; (3). Compensation for reasonable enforcement expenses including attorney&#8217;s fees, notarization fees and investigation and evidence collection fees.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a decision on the merits, is the winner entitled to recover all or a portion of its legal costs incurred in bringing or defending the proceedings. If legal costs are recoverable, what is the procedure involved and how does the Court assess the level of legal costs which should be reimbursed by the losing party.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>When the trademark right holder is the prevailing party, it has the right to claim that the losing infringer bear the reasonable litigation costs and reasonable enforcement expenses incurred in the proceedings. In practice, the court generally supports the claim for a portion rather than the whole amount. Where the defendant wins the case (e.g., non-infringement is found), the defendant generally bears its own legal costs unless it can prove the plaintiff (trademark right holder) acted in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>Procedure: The prevailing party shall explicitly claim the above costs in its litigation claims\/counterclaims, and the court will determine the specific amount to be borne by the losing party together in the judgment. The court ascertains the payable amount by considering 1) the degree of success in the claims, 2) the difficulty of the case, 3) the actual workload of the attorney, and 4) the legitimacy of the supporting evidence for the expenses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Once the Court has issued a judgment, how long typically does the losing party have to comply with the Court\u2019s judgment including any final injunction issued? What are the consequences for failing to comply and how would the winning party seek enforcement of its judgement.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The performance period is specified by the court in the judgment (generally 10 days after the judgment becoming legally effective); if not specified in the judgment, the losing party shall perform the judgment obligations immediately from the date when the judgment takes legal effect.<\/p>\n<p>Consequences of failure to perform the judgment: (1). Bearing liquidated damages for delayed performance calculated in accordance with the law; (2). Being included in the list of person subject to enforcement for breach of trust with restrictions on high consumption and exit from the country; (3). Assuming criminal liability if the act constitutes the crime of refusing to execute a court judgment or ruling.<\/p>\n<p>The prevailing party may apply to the court for compulsory enforcement within two years from the date the judgment takes effect by submitting an application for enforcement and the effective judgment. The court will then take compulsory enforcement measures such as seizing, freezing and auctioning the infringer&#8217;s property.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">6991<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/139130","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}