CHANG TSI
Insights
This is a high-profile unfair competition regarding protection of distinctive trade dress of products with certain influence. The favorable judgment issued by Shenyang Intermediate Court taken effect in April 2025. This case was handled by our Partner Nancy Qu and our associate Wendy Wei.
1. Our client, Luoyang Ruiguang Movie-TV Optic-Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ruiguang”) is a leading company with high reputation in the field of monitoring equipment for film and television use.
2. Ruiguang launched its “Armor No. 1” monitor portable case in 2018, featuring a distinctive packaging and decoration characterized by four-corner shock absorption, pressure plate fixation, metal epaulets, and a red-black contrast color scheme, which left a strong impression on consumers. Before launching to the market, Ruiguang filed 8 patents (utility models and designs) to protect its “Armor No. 1” monitor portable case.
3. Since its release, the “Armor No. 1” case has obtained multiple quality certifications and been hailed by the industry as the “unbreakable monitor case.” Its excellent quality and unique packaging and decoration design have been widely recognized by industry insiders, with substantial sales in domestic and international markets. It has gained nationwide fame through domestic and international exhibitions, media coverage, participating in major political and commercial events, as well as in the filming of well-known movies and television shows (such as the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China military parade in 2019, live broadcasts of international sports events, etc.).
4. A company based on Shenzhen (confidential, hereinafter referred to as “B”) is one of the competitors of Ruiguang. Without authorization, B produced to the market a protective case which highly resembles the packaging and decoration of Ruiguang's "Armor No.1" monitor portable case in terms of overall shape, design style, color combination, and visual effect.
5. Ruiguang decided to take legal actions against B.
1. After fully considered the pros and cons of lawsuits for design patent infringement and unfair competition based on the facts of this case, we recommend the client choosing the right of distinctive decoration of goods with certain reputation and initiate a civil lawsuit of unfair competition.
2. Fully considered the characteristics of Ruiguang's products and their packaging and decoration, we helped Ruiguang to collect sufficinet evidence of the fame of its "Armor No.1" monitor portable case and its packaging and decoration from multiple dimensions, proving that its product packaging and decoration are distinctive and have gained high visibility and influence among the relevant public and have constituted distinctive packaging and decoration of goods with a certain influence.
3. Fully argue the similarity between the packaging and decoration of the alleged infringing product and the involved product's packaging and decoration, and collect evidence as much as possible to prove that the defendants' actions have actually led to confusion and misrecognition among the relevant public.
4. Fully present evidence to prove B's bad faith, such as the history of B imitating the packaging and decoration of other products of the plaintiff, and promoting the alleged infringing products at the same exhibitions as the plaintiff, etc.
1. When comparing the decoration of goods, the general attention of the relevant public should be the standard, adhering to the methods of overall observation and isolated observation. In addition to considering the textual content, meaning, etc., factors such as color, arrangement, font, and font size in the overall decoration—as well as their roles—should also be taken into account to determine whether they affect the distinctiveness of the goods.
2. In the isolated observation of the accused infringing product's decoration and the plaintiff's decoration rights, based on the general attention of the relevant public and from an overall perspective, the accused infringing product's decoration shares the following features with the plaintiff's protected decoration: black shock-absorbing pads fixed with press plates at the four corners of the metal frame, a shoulder patch on each side of the handle above the metal frame, several horizontal ridges on the surface of the front and back covers, and an overall color scheme of "red + black" or "orange + black" contrast pairing. The visual effects and overall style conveyed by both are highly similar.
3. Due to the plaintiff's long-term use and promotion of its decoration, it has gained a certain level of recognition domestically. As a competitor in the same industry, Defendant B should have been aware that the plaintiff's decoration carries a strong commercial reputation. Moreover, Defendant B and Plaintiff Ruiguang have participated in the same trade shows multiple times, making it even more likely that B knew the accused infringing product's decoration was highly similar to that of the plaintiff's product. By willfully using an identifier similar to the plaintiff's influential trade dress, Defendant B subjectively intended to free-ride on the plaintiff's reputation and objectively created a high likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
4. Defendant B's actions violated the principles of good faith and fair competition in market transactions, disrupted normal market order, and harmed the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. Such conduct falls under the category of "confusion acts" as stipulated in Article 6(1) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and constitutes unfair competition.
The Shenyang Intermediate Court ruled that the defendants cease infringement and ordered B to compensate Ruiguang CNY 500,000 (approx. USD71429).
Text, graphics, colors, and their arrangements and combinations on the goods or their packaging with a certain market reputation, not commonly used for the relevant goods, and with distinctive features that serve to identify and beautify goods, can be protected as packaging and decoration of goods with a certain influence under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China.
When comparing the packaging and decoration of goods, the general level of attention of the relevant public should be the standard, and the method of overall observation and isolated observation should be adhered to. In addition to considering the textual content and meaning, it is also necessary to consider the status and role of their colors, arrangement order, font and font size in the overall decoration, and whether they would affect the recognizability of the goods. A design patent should reflect the protection of innovation. When judging the infringement of a design patent, attention should be paid to the impact of subtle differences on the overall visual effect. In contrast, when judging the infringement of a commercial mark, more consideration is given to whether the identical parts of the involved mark and the alleged infringing mark are sufficient to cause confusion and misidentification among consumers. To achieve judgments under different standards, design patents use a direct comparison method, while commercial marks use an isolated comparison method. Whether the design patent and the alleged infringing products are similar or not do not affect the judgment of similarity of trademarks or decorations. Therefore, when protection cannot be obtained through design patents, right holders can consider seeking protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China.
