Judicial Trends in Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition in Live-Streaming E-Commerce: Lessons from the Typical Cases Selected by the Beijing High People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court
This article was authored by Gavin Zuo (Partner, Beijing) and Jade Chen (Associate, Beijing) of Bird & Bird Lawjay association team.
I. Introduction
Live-streaming e-commerce has quickly become one of the most dynamic and influential business models in China’s digital economy. Platforms such as Douyin, Kuaishou, and Taobao Live have reshaped consumer engagement by blending entertainment with real-time sales. However, this rapid growth has also created fertile ground for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Influencers and merchants, often without authorization, exploit well-known brands to attract traffic, mislead consumers, and sell competing or counterfeit goods.
Against this backdrop, Chinese courts have begun to set clear boundaries on how the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law apply in live-streaming scenarios. Two recent cases stand out as milestones: the Baidu case (Case No.: (2024) Jing Min Zhong No. 606), selected by the Beijing High People’s Court as one of the Top Ten IP Judicial Protection Cases of 2024, and the Huamou case (Case No.: (2025) Zhe 08 Min Zhong No. 563), selected by the Supreme People’s Court as one of the Eight Typical Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of 2025. Their inclusion in these authoritative lists underscores the judiciary’s determination to strengthen brand protection, punish traffic-hijacking practices, and promote the healthy development of the live-streaming industry.
II. The Baidu Case
In the Baidu case, Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. owned the “百度 (Baidu)” trademark in Class 42, covering services such as “providing computer information via computer networks”. The company licensed its affiliate to use the mark. Together, they alleged that an individual named He registered the username “非洲百度 (African Baidu)” on Douyin, uploaded videos for advertising and live-streaming sales, and sold goods through storefronts titled “非洲百度的橱窗 (African Baidu’s Window)” and “非洲百度的小店 (African Baidu’s Shop)”.
The first instance court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, holding that it was unnecessary to recognize the disputed trademark as well-known. On appeal, however, the Beijing High People’s Court reversed. The Beijing High People’s Court emphasized that the defendant’s conduct involved diverse forms of commercial sign usage. Although Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. also owned a registered trademark in Class 35, that registration was insufficient to protect its rights in this context. The plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the Class 42 registration as the legal basis for their claims and further determined that the trademark should be recognized as well-known. Considering the widespread recognition of “百度 (Baidu)” among the relevant public at the time of the infringement, the Beijing High People’s Court concluded that the defendant’s actions infringed the plaintiff’s rights. It ordered compensation of RMB 600,000, with Douyin held jointly liable for RMB 100,000 due to its failure to take timely measures after receiving notice.
The Beijing High People’s Court highlighted the broader significance of the case, noting that it exemplified how self-media users exploit live-streaming sales functions to infringe trademark rights. The judgment’s recognition that rights holders may choose the disputed registered trademark as the legal basis for their claims was described as a valuable exploration of the principle of “as-needed recognition” of well-known trademarks in new business models.
III. The Huamou Case
The Huamou case involved Huamou Technology Co., Ltd., which owned four registered trademarks, including “Huamou”, covering “mobile phones” in Class 9. These marks had been recognized as well-known in prior judgments, and the “Huamou” trade name was acknowledged as an enterprise name with significant influence.
Without authorization, Damou E-Commerce Co., Ltd. and its previous sole shareholder Zhang operated multiple Douyin accounts, producing short videos prominently featuring Huamou’s marks. These videos served as the main traffic entry point for their live-streaming sessions. After attracting viewers through improper traffic diversion, they decorated their live-streaming rooms to closely resemble Huamou’s offline stores, using the marks in posters, host clothing, verbal promotions, and product placement. They sold digital products of other brands and earned commissions from live-streaming sales.
The first instance court found that Damou and Zhang had jointly infringed Huamou’s exclusive trademark rights and engaged in unfair competition. Using their commission income during the infringement period as the base, the court applied three times punitive damages and awarded RMB 1.1 million. On appeal, the Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court upheld the first instance judgment. It emphasized that the defendants’ conduct amounted to comprehensive exploitation of Huamou’s goodwill, attaching themselves to the reputation of a famous trademark to attract followers and traffic, and then selling large quantities of low-priced products similar in appearance to Huamou’s goods. Although they had sold only a small number of Huamou phones, their use of the marks far exceeded legitimate referential use and was likely to cause consumer confusion. The Quzhou Intermediate People’s Court also found that their short videos and live-streaming posters constituted unauthorized use of another’s enterprise name and product identifiers with significant influence, creating confusion and violating Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The Supreme People’s Court underscored the typical significance of the case, describing it as a clear example of combating trademark infringement and unfair competition in the traffic-hijacking live-streaming sales model. The judgment recognized that prominently using another party’s well-known commercial signs through platform mechanisms and algorithmic rules to achieve improper traffic diversion and cause confusion constitutes both trademark infringement and unfair competition.
IV. Practical Implications for Rights Holders
For trademark owners, these judgments carry important lessons. They highlight the importance of proactive monitoring, as rights holders must closely watch live-streaming platforms for unauthorized use of their marks in usernames, short videos, and live-streaming rooms. They underscore the need for robust evidence preservation, with screenshots, recordings, and notarized evidence of infringing sessions proving crucial for litigation. Blockchain-based preservation can further enhance admissibility.
The cases also demonstrate the value of engaging with platform complaint systems. Verified accounts and brand protection programs offered by platforms can provide additional safeguards, while timely takedown requests can limit damage. Litigation remains a viable enforcement path, with courts receptive to claims involving live-streaming infringement, while administrative enforcement through local regulators can provide quicker relief. Finally, the judgments emphasize the strategic importance of well-known trademark recognition. Owners of well-known marks can seek “as-needed recognition” to extend protection beyond registered classes, ensuring broader coverage in digital contexts.
V. Conclusion
The Baidu and Huamou cases clearly demonstrate how China’s courts are taking a firm stance on protecting well‑known brands, imposing meaningful penalties on unfair competition, and guiding the healthy growth of the live‑streaming industry. Together, they mark important milestones in the country’s judicial approach to trademark infringement and unfair competition in the fast‑moving world of live‑streaming e‑commerce.
By designating these matters as exemplary cases, the Beijing High People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court have sent a strong signal of their commitment to safeguarding brand reputation, curbing traffic‑hijacking practices, and ensuring a fair and orderly digital marketplace. For brand owners, the message is straightforward: success in this environment requires vigilant monitoring of platforms, a well‑planned trademark registration strategy, careful preservation of evidence, and timely enforcement actions. These tools are essential to protect—and ultimately enhance—brand value in China’s rapidly evolving live‑streaming economy.
