On December 26, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court issued a final judgment in the administrative dispute over the invalidation of a design patent right between Puma Europe GmbH and Jiangsu Duowei Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. The Court revoked the first-instance judgment and the decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to maintain the validity of the patent, and declared the entire design patent for "sports shoes" owned by Duowei invalid.
This reversal quickly drew industry attention, providing authoritative guidance on the criteria for determining conflicts between design patents and prior trademark rights.
Parties to the Case and Infringement Facts
The plaintiff, Puma Europe GmbH, is a world-renowned sports brand. Its "Formstrip Logo" has been an iconic design of Puma footwear since its launch in 1958. Puma has successively obtained multiple registrations of the Formstrip graphic trademark in China since 1976, all approved for use on shoes, sports shoes and other goods.
The defendant, Jiangsu Duowei Sporting Goods Co., Ltd., is based in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, mainly engaged in sports shoes and other products. In May 2022, Duowei filed an application for a design patent named "Sports Shoes", which was granted in August of the same year.
The patent used a stripe pattern consisting of three curved lines on the side of the upper. Puma held that the design was highly similar to its Formstrip trademark, and thus filed a request for invalidation with the CNIPA.
Duowei argued that the design patent in question was a legitimate use of its registered Trademark No. 3016612 for which it had obtained a license, and did not conflict with Puma’s prior trademark rights.
CNIPA Maintained the Validity of the Patent
In August 2023, the CNIPA issued a decision maintaining the validity of the patent in question.
The CNIPA held that the patented design was more similar to Duowei’s Trademark No. 612, which remained legally valid, and Duowei had the right to use it on patented products. Puma’s evidence was insufficient to prove that relevant consumers would be confused.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Puma filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
First Instance Upheld the Original Decision
During the trial, Puma argued:
-
The pattern used in the patent in question had altered the distinctive features of Trademark No. 612 and did not constitute fair use.
-
The pattern was similar to Puma’s prior trademarks, with obvious intent to free-ride on the reputation of a famous brand.
After review, the first-instance court held that the patent in question was more similar to Trademark No. 612, and Duowei had the right to use its legally registered trademark.
In October 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a first-instance judgment, dismissing Puma’s claim and upholding the CNIPA’s decision.
Puma refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal with the Supreme People’s Court.
Supreme Court’s Final Reversal: Public Perception Is Key
In December 2025, the Supreme People’s Court issued a final judgment, revoking the first-instance judgment and the CNIPA’s decision. It ruled that the design in question conflicted with three of Puma’s prior trademarks and should be invalidated. The Court’s reasoning was divided into three levels:
-
The disputed pattern constitutes trademark use
The Supreme Court pointed out that the criteria for trademark infringement shall apply to determine whether a conflict of rights exists. In the footwear industry, it is a common practice to use graphic trademarks on the middle of the lateral side of the upper to indicate the source of goods, and relevant consumers usually identify the source through such patterns. The disputed pattern in the patent was prominently used on the lateral side of the upper and occupied a large area, constituting prominent use. Duowei’s claim of fair use of its own trademark itself acknowledged that such use was trademark use.
-
The disputed pattern is similar to prior trademarks and likely to cause confusion
The Supreme Court analyzed from three dimensions:
-
Similarity of goods: The patent covers sports shoes, which are the same category as the goods approved for use under Puma’s prior trademarks.
-
Similarity of signs: Both adopt curved Formstrip patterns formed by smooth lines, consisting of three strands, and are similar in shape, layout area, composition design and line direction.
-
Distinctiveness and popularity of prior trademarks: Puma has used the Formstrip logo on sports shoes since 1958, conducted extensive publicity through sports stars, TV advertisements, online media and other channels, and enjoyed high popularity before the filing date.
In summary, although there were certain differences between the disputed pattern and Puma’s prior trademarks, combined with the distinctiveness and popularity of the prior trademarks, its implementation was likely to cause relevant consumers to confuse the source of the goods.
-
Duowei’s defense of "legitimate use of its own trademark" is untenable
In response to Duowei’s claim, the Supreme Court made a key finding: In disputes over conflicts between design patent rights and prior trademark rights, if a patentee significantly alters the distinctive features of its own trademark that distinguish it from another’s well-known prior registered trademark, substantially uses the distinctive features of another’s trademark in the patented design, and the specific use method is basically consistent with the prior trademark, such use does not constitute legitimate and fair use of its own registered trademark.
This case is not an isolated one. Puma filed multiple invalidation requests against a series of Duowei’s design patents. In six related cases, the Supreme People’s Court made consistent rulings that the designs in question conflicted with Puma’s prior trademark rights and should be invalidated.
This indicates that the Supreme Court’s adjudicative position is systematic, not an accidental judgment in a single case.
Significance and Implications of the Case
The reversal of this case is of multiple significance:
First, it clarifies the substantive criteria for determining conflicts between design patents and prior trademark rights: the criteria for trademark infringement shall apply, focusing on examining whether it constitutes trademark use, whether it is similar, and whether it is likely to cause confusion. A granted design patent does not automatically mean that its implementation does not constitute trademark infringement.
Second, it rejects "legitimate use of one’s own trademark" as a shield to evade infringement. Even if a patentee owns its own registered trademark, if it substantially alters the distinctive features of that trademark to distinguish it from another’s famous trademark and essentially misappropriates the core elements of another’s trademark in the patented design, such use does not constitute legitimate use. This finding addresses the practice where some applicants take advantage of the fact that design patents are not subject to substantive examination to attempt to evade infringement risks in the name of "own trademarks".
Third, it provides a powerful weapon for brand owners to protect their rights. When discovering that competitors "free-ride" by applying for design patents, they may file invalidation requests under Article 23, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law. The adjudicative rules of this case will significantly strengthen the protection of brand obligees.
