In 2025, the nanjing municipal market supervisory authority (mpra) carefully followed up on the deployment of its superiors, continued to strengthen the administrative protection of intellectual property throughout the city, and seriously investigated and prosecuted all types of intellectual property abuse in the market area, creating favourable conditions for optimizing the business environment in nanjing. To further raise public awareness of the protection of intellectual property rights in society, guide market subjects to operate legally and improve their ability to identify and protect against all types of intellectual property abuse, the city council has selected for publication a number of cases that are typically more relevant and socially influential in the municipal market regulation (ipr) sector。
Case v
Production at a craft factory in the six-hub district of nanjing city
Violations of the registered trademark of “pop mart”
It's a specialty toy case
Briefing: in march 2025, a complaint was received from the six-joke market supervisory authority of nanjing city, alleging that a famous brand of toys produced by a crafts factory in the six-joke district of nanjing city were counterfeit products. It was found that in february 2025 the party had received a down payment of $15,000 from the orderr through a micro-letter and had agreed orally to process 8,400 items of pop mart velvet toys for the orderr, all of which were for material processing, with the party bearing only the basic fabric and internal fillings of the velvet toys. At the time of the crime, the party had produced over 4,000 velvet toys with a total value of $28,000. The superintendence of markets of the six-zone found that the production of velvet toys that violated the right of “pop mart” to register trademarks was in violation of article 57 of the trademarks law of the people's republic of china, and ordered the immediate cessation of the violation, in accordance with the provisions of the trademark law of the people's republic of china and the administrative punishment law of the people's republic of china, and imposed administrative penalties of $16,000 for the confiscation of products and accessories used in violation of the law, and a fine of $25,000。
Typical significance: in recent years, the market for creative-style products, represented by pop mart, has burst, some businesses have made a profit and have seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of registered trademark holders through unlawful means such as counterfeiting trademarks. The investigation in this case was an important warning for such violations, as well as a reminder to the wider intergenerational processing market: in the process of being commissioned, the legal obligation to review the intellectual property rights of products is not exonerated and the necessary intellectual property rights review obligation must be performed in accordance with the law and the respective legal liability defined on the basis of the contractual basis。
Case vi
Some kind of technology in takahung district, nanjing
Violations by limited companies of the right to register trademarks case
Fact sheets: in january 2025, the goung district market supervisory authority received an opinion from the people's procuratorate of the noose wu district of noose city, which decided not to prosecute a technical (nanjing) limited company for alleged offences related to the sale of counterfeit registered trademark goods and recommended administrative penalties for the offence. In february 2025, the goung district market supervisory authority opened a case in which it was found that in april 2023 the person had obtained authorization from the shanghai a brand company by the xuzhou a brand company to become a distributor. Xuzhou's a brand company is a first-class distributor and the party is a second-tier distributor. In april 2023, the parties entered into a contract with a company without tin for the sale of three sets of anti-frust anti-fouling anti-fouling devices, brand a, at a unit cost of $160,000. In july 2023, the shanghai company refused to supply the goods for reasons internal to the shanghai a brand company, and the party negotiated with the head of the xuzhou a brand company to have the shell made by someone else, and the party purchased a set of other types of anti-corrosion protection devices from hebei a brand company, used the chips and customised them on the internet store to be delivered as a finished set of devices to the company. The above-mentioned devices, which are identified by shanghai company a, are not products of its company or produced without its authorization and are counterfeit registered trademarks. The parties acted in violation of article 57 (1) of the trademarks law of the people's republic of china, which constitutes a trademark violation, and in violation of article 30 of the product quality law. In accordance with the provisions of the trademarks law of the people's republic of china and the administrative punishments law of the people's republic of china, taking into account the fact that the person in question is guilty of the first offence, actively cooperates in the investigation, voluntarily refunds and obtains an understanding, the market supervision authority of the district of gao ordered the person in question to cease the violation immediately and to impose an administrative penalty of rmb 200,000。
Typical significance: in the present case, the parties, as distributors, were in contractual performance disputes that could have been resolved by means of communication negotiations after the company-owned company had suspended the supply of the goods for breach of its internal regulations. However, by means of external purchases, self-assembly assembly, forgery of markings, the parties used to sell the trademarks and factory names that were falsely registered by the head office, thereby constituting trademark infringement. Although administrative penalties were eventually imposed in the present case, the circumstances of the offence were close to the standard for criminal proceedings, which revealed a low level of legal awareness. The investigation of the case was of high typical significance in regulating the legitimate conduct of market distributors。
Case vii
A health technology in the kurumu district of nanjing city
Limited patent tort dispute
Fact sheet: in february 2020, the applicant, liu xiao, was granted a patent for a new type of patent called “ai qin, aki qui, aki”, and in august 2025, liu xiao filed a request for an administrative decision with the intellectual property office of the hyung wu district of nanjing city, alleging that a penetrating product sold by a health technology company ltd. Violated its patent rights. Following the trial, neither liu chia nor a health technology company, inc., contested whether the alleged tort products fell entirely within the protection of the patent in question, and the dispute in the present case was whether the alleged tort products were available technologies. The office of intellectual property of the zhuang wu district has examined whether the existing technical defences of the person sought cannot be established and whether the mere publication of information in the circle of friends does not automatically constitute public disclosure, or whether they are “publicly known” within the meaning of patent law, and it is essential to examine their physical accessibility and the reliability of evidence, taking into account the nature of the account number, the purpose of the publication, the scope of dissemination and the regular manner of evidence. There is no clear link between the micro-trust community evidence provided by a health technology company, which can be shown to belong to the same technology programme, and key information such as the name of the product, its use, structure, functional parameters, etc., is not disclosed without a textual description of the content of the community of friends, which makes it difficult to reveal the key technical characteristics of the functional new patent claim. In terms of the issuer's nickname and form of content, the account is not an enterprise or microbusiness account, and the publication does not contain promotional information such as price, contact details or purchase channels, and lacks direction for sale or public use. In addition, the photographs provided by the requested person were only transcribed, were not presented in a notarized form or in the back-office records of the platform, could not exclude the possibility of tampering, fusion, lack of stability and credibility of evidence and difficulties in meeting the standard of proof required by existing technical defences. In conclusion, the existing technical defences raised by a health technology company, ltd., lacked facts and legal basis, failed to complete the evidence and were not supported by the authority. In september 2025, the intellectual property office of the hyungwu district of nanjing city issued an administrative decision, in which the applicant, a health technology company, ltd., violated liu xiao's new and functional patent rights to “ai jing, aingi, aki” and ordered the company to cease immediately the sale of the products alleged to have been abused, in accordance with the patent law of the people's republic of china and the patent administrative enforcement scheme。
Typical: in this case, on the front-line issue of “whether disclosure of the community of friends constitutes an existing design”, the concept of adjudication is replicable and proliferable, taking into account the fact-specific analysis, taking into account the multidimensional elements of the information dissemination mechanism, the nature of the account, the intent to disseminate and the audience. In recent years, the municipal intellectual property authority has focused on building a cadre of administrative decisions at the grass-roots level. As a district-level intellectual property department, the intellectual property office of the hyunwu district has actively explored new methods of administrative decisions, using the mechanism of “summary of cases, divisions, qualified identification” to close the case by just 19 working days, providing a more efficient path for market subjects to use administrative decisions to resolve patent disputes。
Case viii
A frozen wholesale centre in puguchi, nanjing city
Proof of violation of geographical indications
Trademark monuments
Fact sheet: in august 2024, the market supervisory authority of the poguchi district of nanjing city received a referral from the nanjing city market supervisory authority stating that a frozen wholesale centre in the puguchi district was not authorized to sell a geographical marker product, qingyang, on a poaching platform, and that it was not authorized to use the qingy chicken geographical symbol to prove a trademark. It was found that in august 2024, the person in question had purchased from a food operator in the jiangning district a 2-box container with a value of $790 for the goods marked “pakewood walking faraway chicken” and then sold a total of 14 copies with a value of $1584. In the information he provided, it was not possible to provide the products of the “clean faraway chicken” geographical symbol and the authorization of the “clean faraway chicken” geographical symbol to certify the trademark. On that date, the puguchi regional office ordered the person concerned to stop selling the goods involved. For the purposes of further investigation and verification, the puguchi market regulatory authority referred the case to the market supervisory authority, where the product was sold and where the manufacturer was located, and sent a letter requesting the assistance of the market supervisory authority where the manufacturer was located, where the authorities indicated that the dealer, producer had no geographical identification of the product, and that the trademarks were not commissioned or authorized. The superintendence of markets of the puguchi district found that the person had violated the provisions of article 57, paragraph 2, of the trademark law of the people's republic of china, given that the person had been found to have committed the offence for the first time, was able to prove that he had obtained it legally and indicated the origin of the goods and had stopped selling the goods in question in due course. In accordance with the provisions of the trademarks act of the people's republic of china and the regulations on the procedure for administrative punishment of market supervision, it is decided not to impose administrative penalties on the persons concerned。
Typical significance: this case, through the investigation of the geographical indications case, successfully put into practice the “sale-circulation-production” whole chain of law enforcement collaboration mechanisms across regions. The law applies precisely and reasonably to the determination of trademark infringement. Given that geographical marker products differ from ordinary commodities, their special attributes are fully taken into account in law enforcement, a careful balance is struck between rights holders and the public interest, and problems of inadequate or excessive protection are effectively avoided. Taking into account the amount involved, the first violation of the law and the cooperative approach to the investigation, the present case, in accordance with the law, makes a decision of “first non-punishment”, which reflects both the rigidity of the law and the room for error and error on the part of small and medium-sized market players, and is a useful practice in implementing an inclusive regulatory and business environment。
Prepared by: sun yong
Review: xu xuan wang sail
Fat: cheng yani
Set up: li xian
