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 1
The sale of a cigarette hotel in nanjing drum building
Cases of violations of trademark rights
Fact sheet: in november 2024, the market inspectorate of the nanjing drum building district carried out an on-site inspection of the premises of a tobacco hotel in the drum building district, on the basis of a tip-off report, and found that 20 bottles of chalk-polymers were suspected of being fraudulent. In december 2024, in connection with the alleged violation of the relevant provisions of the criminal law of the people's republic of china, the market supervisory authority of the drum building district referred the case to the drum building branch of the nanjing city public security directorate. In january 2025, the branchal directorate of the drum building of the nanjing city public security directorate replied that the value of the goods involved in the case did not meet the criteria for the establishment of a case for the sale of counterfeit registered goods and returned it to the market supervisory authority of the drum building district for administrative punishment. It was determined that the goods involved were goods whose registered trademarks had been violated, with a total value of $56,000. The parties indicated that 20 bottles of pavilions were for the purpose of retrieving the customer's white wine, leaving no contact details, and no dealer's qualifications, bills of purchase, etc. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the trademark law of the people's republic of china and the food safety law of the people's republic of china, the superintendency of markets of the drum building districts ordered the immediate cessation of violations, warning, confiscation of 20 bottles of plaster plaster peddles that violate the right to exclusive use of registered trademarks, and administrative penalties of $168,000。
Typically, “the two-way connection between execution and execution” is an important step in building a chain of protection for intellectual property rights and promoting social harmony and co-governance. In conducting their cases, market regulators have always maintained a full chain of protection awareness and have taken the initiative to strengthen their interaction with public security organs. The principles of “comparable punishment” and “precision strike” are truly reflected in the precise characterization of the facts of the violations by both parties, clear jurisdictional boundaries and ensuring the smooth transfer of leads。
Case 2
A labour co. Ltd., nanjing city rainside
The sale of tarzan's light steel bones
The right to register trademarks
Briefing: in october 2024, on the basis of a report trail, the market supervision authority of the rainside district of nanjing city examined the site of the renovation of the a-3# industrial estate of a person in the rainflower district, and found the “thaishan” light steel bones suspected of violating the right to register trademarks. It has been found that the client, a labour company, purchased 929 light steel skeletons marked by the “tarshan” trademark from the doorman, at a price of $10,500, and resold the goods to a construction company for the renovation of the a-3# building described above. These products were identified by tarzan plaster limited as counterfeit tort products. In december 2024, the above-mentioned products were tested by the nanjing product quality monitoring and inspection institute, in violation of article 39 of the law of the people's republic of china on product quality. In accordance with article 29 of the law of the people's republic of china on administrative penalties and article 60 of the law of the people's republic of china on trademarks, the superintendence of markets of the rainflower zone deals with the following: 1. Orders to cease violations; 2. Seizure of tort goods; 3. Fines of hk$ 80,000。
Typical meaning: cases of violations in the field of construction work are often more hidden, long-term, public safety-related and socially harmful. Market regulators have exercised their full functional advantage by conducting a double-checking case of intellectual property and quality security on the basis of evidence, which has further consolidated the factual basis of the violation, reflecting the importance attached to fraudulent violations in the construction sector and the determination to strike the whole chain, a case that is exemplary in undermining corporate responsibility to cut off the supply chain and safeguard the quality of work。
Case 3
A glass company limited, gangning district, nanjing city
Cases of violation of the right to register trademarks
Briefing: in september 2024, after receiving an opinion from the public prosecutor's office of nanjing railway transport, the market supervisory authority of jiangning district, nanjing city, issued a decision not to prosecute a case involving the alleged fraudulent registration of trademarks by huang and liu, a glass company, in nanjing. In october 2024, the market supervision authority of jiangning district opened a legal investigation into the persons concerned. It was found that, prior to the case, the parties, without the permission of the owner of the trademark, had customised steel-coated glass with a registered trademark to the company limited for energy-saving materials, and that it was intended to sell the glass directly or partially into blank glass for a total amount of $87,697. 71, followed by the sale by the party of the above-mentioned branded steel-coated glass operation of $89,472. 07 and the illegal proceeds of $1209. 06. According to article 57, paragraph 1, of the trademark law of the people's republic of china, the above-mentioned acts were found to be in violation of article 57, paragraph 1, of the trademark law of the people's republic of china and the administrative punishment law of the people's republic of china, the following administrative penalties were imposed on the persons concerned: 1. To order an immediate cessation of the impersonation of the right to register trademarks; 2. To confiscate $1209. 06; 3. To fine $8947. 07。
Typical meaning: in this case, the person concerned was both the principal and the producer and was at the heart of the whole case. This is an entry point for market regulators to effectively implement the “mutual execution” mechanism for intellectual property cases and to promote a smooth transition between administrative enforcement and the chain of judicial custody. At the same time, in considering the size of the penalty, the executive branch took a decision to impose a fine of twice the amount of the illegal business by combining the prosecution's recommendation from the nanjing city public prosecutor's office, the actual operation of the person concerned and the manner in which the investigation was conducted。
Case 4
It's a dress shop in nanjing city
Disputes over violation of the right to register trademarks
