“枫叶” and “楓葉” share identical pronunciation and meaning, differing only in simplified‑traditional Chinese glyphs. Around these two marks, Foshan Shunde Taiyuan Industrial Co., Ltd. and Harbin Zhenxing Decoration Material Industrial Co., Ltd. were engaged in years‑long trademark infringement litigation.

The case went through first‑instance, second‑instance and retrial before the Supreme People’s Court with a fundamental reversal of results. The first‑instance court found infringement and awarded RMB 7.65 million damages. The second‑instance court applied the maximum 5‑fold punitive damages and fully supported the RMB 30 million claim. On retrial, the Supreme People’s Court set aside all lower‑court judgments, dismissed all claims of the plaintiff and ruled that the defendant’s conduct did not constitute trademark infringement. This landmark case clarifies the standards for trademark‑infringement judgment where both parties hold valid registered trademarks.

Parties and Rights Basis

The plaintiff, Foshan Shunde Taiyuan Industrial Co., Ltd., founded on December 27, 2000, engages in manufacturing and sales of silicone sealant, all‑purpose adhesive and similar goods. Taiyuan holds No.9370332 registered trademark “枫叶” (simplified Chinese), filed April 21, 2011, registered September 7, 2013. Approved goods are Class 1 Group 0115: industrial adhesives, polyurethane, neoprene glue, wall tile adhesives, wallpaper adhesives, silicone glass glue, silicone sealant and others.

In addition, Taiyuan acquired No.1116437 “枫叶” trademark from a third party in December 2010. This mark was filed August 1996, registered October 1997, approved for “adhesives” and other goods in Class 1.

The defendant Harbin Zhenxing Decoration Material Industrial Co., Ltd. was founded in April 1998, with business scope covering building‑decoration materials and chemical products. Zhenxing holds No.9417319 registered trademark “楓葉” (traditional Chinese), filed May 3, 2011, registered May 21, 2012. Its approved goods include “silicone” under Class 1 Group 0102, and leak‑stopping preparations, gap‑filling preparations, flame retardants, ethyl silicone oil under Group 0104. Zhenxing also owns multiple trademarks including “世紀楓葉紅”, which was recognized as a well‑known trademark in Heilongjiang Province or Harbin in 2007, 2011 and 2013.

Co‑defendant Jiangmen Runjing Industrial Co., Ltd. acted as OEM manufacturer entrusted by Zhenxing for the accused products.

Dispute Origin and Litigation Timeline

There was prior business connection between Taiyuan and Zhenxing. In July 2005, they signed a cooperation agreement, appointing Zhenxing as exclusive national distributor for Taiyuan’s “枫叶” silicone glass glue. Cooperation terminated in May 2009, and relations deteriorated afterwards.

In November 2021, Taiyuan sued Zhenxing and Runjing before the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court for trademark infringement.

Taiyuan alleged that although Zhenxing’s “楓葉” trademark was approved for “silicone”, the defendants actually used the mark on “glass glue”, exceeding the approved scope and infringing Taiyuan’s exclusive right for “枫叶” on silicone glass glue. Taiyuan also requested a finding that its “枫叶” mark be recognized as a well‑known trademark, sought punitive damages, and claimed RMB 30 million for economic loss plus reasonable expenses.

Zhenxing and Runjing argued that accused products were labeled “acidic silicone” or “high‑grade acidic silicone”, falling within the approved “silicone” scope of their registered trademark. Their mark had long‑term use and higher reputation, so no infringement existed.

First‑instance: Finding Excess‑scope Use, RMB 7.65 Million Damages

The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the accused “acidic silicone” was essentially glass glue. “Glass glue” belongs to Class 1 Group 0115, while “silicone” belongs to Group 0102. They fall into different similar‑product groups and are neither identical nor similar goods. Zhenxing used its “楓葉” mark for “silicone” upon glass‑glue products, exceeding the approved scope. “枫叶” and “楓葉” differ only in simplified‑traditional forms with identical pronunciation and meaning, likely to cause consumer confusion, hence constituting trademark infringement.

The first‑instance court ordered Zhenxing to pay RMB 7.65 million economic loss plus RMB 108,850 reasonable expenses; Runjing bore joint‑and‑several liability for RMB 600,000 of the total amount.

Second‑instance: Maximum 5‑fold Punitive Damages, RMB 30 Million Awarded

Dissatisfied with the low award, Taiyuan appealed to the Guangdong Higher People’s Court. The Guangdong High Court upheld the infringement finding but drastically revised the damages amount.

The court held that Zhenxing had been Taiyuan’s exclusive distributor since 2005 and had full knowledge of the prior mark on glass‑glue products. Zhenxing once attempted to register “楓葉” for glass glue and was rejected in September 2008 by administrative authorities, so it clearly knew it should not use conflicting marks on glass glue.

Nevertheless, for nearly 20 years, Zhenxing scarcely manufactured “silicone” goods within its approved scope. Instead, it applied its mark to glass‑glue products and labeled them “acidic silicone” to conceal the practice.

The collegial panel characterized this as a rare typical case of long‑term large‑scale malicious trademark infringement by “selling dog meat under a sheep’s head”. It held the RMB 7.65 million first‑instance award insufficient to compensate the right‑holder or deter violations.

Accordingly, the Guangdong High Court applied the statutory maximum 5‑fold punitive damages. The calculated compensation exceeded RMB 50 million, so the full RMB 30 million claim from Taiyuan was granted.

Zhenxing and Runjing refused to accept the second‑instance judgment and filed a petition for retrial before the Supreme People’s Court.

SPC Retrial: Set‑aside Lower Judgments, No Infringement Found

After retrial hearing, on January 29, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court rendered Judgment (2025) SPC Civil Retrial No.345. It set aside both first‑ and second‑instance judgments, dismissed all claims filed by Taiyuan, and held that Zhenxing and Runjing’s conduct did not constitute trademark infringement.

The SPC’s reasoning unfolded along four dimensions:

1. Determination of product scope shall be based on general understanding of relevant public, not mechanical application of the Classification Table. For non‑standard product names such as “acidic silicone” and “glass glue”, comprehensive judgment shall be made according to general industry understanding. The court adopted professional opinions from the China Silicone Sealant Industry Association and other institutions. Within the organic‑silicone industry, “silicone” is the common name for silicone rubber, naturally covering downstream end‑products such as “acidic silicone” and “glass glue”. Therefore “acidic silicone” is a subordinate concept under “silicone”, and Zhenxing’s use did not exceed the approved scope.
2. Respect stable market patterns formed by prior use. Zhenxing had used the “楓葉” mark on glass‑glue products as early as 1997 and obtained relevant design patents. Its “世紀楓葉紅” trademark was repeatedly recognized as a local well‑known mark. After more than 20‑year continuous operation mainly in Heilongjiang region, it had accumulated high market reputation and stable consumer recognition. Such goodwill accumulated through long‑term bona‑fide business deserves legal protection中国知识产....
3. The plaintiff’s trademark had limited distinctiveness and reputation. Taiyuan’s “枫叶” trademark was filed in 2011 and registered in 2013, much later than Zhenxing’s prior mark use. Most of Taiyuan’s submitted evidence (contracts, invoices, advertisements etc.) did not clearly point to the “枫叶” trademark itself, and could hardly prove stable source‑correspondence or high reputation for glass‑glue goods.
4. Simplified‑traditional glyph differences can serve for distinction. Although “枫叶” and “楓葉” have identical pronunciation, they differ in visual appearance. The SPC specially pointed out that simplified Chinese dominates current social usage, so relevant public can relatively easily distinguish these two marks. Combined with Zhenxing’s prior reputation and stable market pattern, relevant public can tell product sources apart.

Three Take‑aways from the Case

1. Similar‑goods assessment shall shift from mechanical reliance on the Classification Table to substantive judgment based on relevant‑public perception.
2. Where both parties hold valid registered trademarks, infringement determination shall center on likelihood of confusion and respect stable market patterns formed by prior use.
3. Application of punitive damages must be premised on established infringement; severity of compensation shall not be used to reverse‑engineer a finding of infringement.