Introduction

Infringement behaviors today have become increasingly diverse and concealed. Traditionally, enforcement efforts and public attention have focused on physical counterfeiting and unauthorized sales. However, a growing number of infringing activities occur on internet platforms—particularly through webpage promotions—which are often overlooked or considered low-priority by enforcement authorities. Rights holders frequently find themselves frustrated: infringers see little risk in such behavior, and administrative department, guided by a principle of restraint, may be reluctant to intervene.

Recently, the Chang Tsi legal team successfully resolved a case involving precisely this issue. The case offers a clear path for trademark owners seeking administrative protection against online-only promotional infringements, and provides a valuable precedent.

Background

SIGNODE INTERNATIONAL IP HOLDINGS LLC (“SIGNODE IP”) is a globally recognized manufacturer of transport packaging materials and equipment. It owns Chinese Trademark No. 5926255 for the mark “COILMASTER”, registered in Class 7 (packaging machinery) since 2009 and widely used in commerce.

Fhope Group (“Fhope”)—a company operating downstream in the same industry—has promoted its business on multiple online platforms since 2016, primarily through its website [fhopepack.com]. On both the English and Chinese versions of the site, Fhope prominently used the word “COILMASTER” to promote its own packaging machines—products that are not from SIGNODE IP.

SIGNODE IP issued cease-and-desist letters to Fhope in December 2021 and again in January 2024, demanding the cessation of infringement. While Fhope made minor adjustments, by October 2024, several pages on its website still contained references to “COILMASTER”, misleading consumers into associating their machines with SIGNODE IP’s brand.

Given the repeated, ongoing infringement, Chang Tsi’s legal team advised the client to pursue administrative enforcement through China’s local Market Supervision Bureau (MSB). After strategic filings and persistent advocacy, the MSB issued a formal penalty decision, ordering Fhope to cease the infringement and imposing a RMB 100,000 fine.

Case Highlights

1. Strategic Filing and Case Acceptance

One of the core challenges in administrative complaints is getting the case formally accepted. Local MSB tends to hesitate in accepting non-traditional infringement complaints—especially when no counterfeit goods are involved. The Chang Tsi team prioritized guiding the MSB toward formal case acceptance, including legal framing and streamlined documentation to reduce perceived complexity for the case handler.

Through active communication, the team successfully convinced the MSB to formally accept the case, clearing the path for an official penalty.

2. Legal Basis: Trademark Law vs. Anti-Unfair Competition Law

A critical decision was whether to pursue the case under the Trademark Law or the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The MSB initially requested that the complaint be revised under the latter. However, Chang Tsi strongly maintained that Trademark Law applied, for two key reasons:

• Nature of Use: Fhope’s unauthorized use of the registered “COILMASTER” mark on identical goods directly infringes the exclusive trademark rights under the Trademark Law.
• Burden of Proof: Trademark infringement is easier to substantiate, while unfair competition claims would require proving market reputation, confusion, and bad faith—raising the evidentiary bar and increasing case risk.

Eventually, the MSB accepted the Trademark Law as the governing legal basis, resulting in a stronger framework for penalty issuance.

3. Trademark Use on Webpages

The MSB initially argued that use of “COILMASTER” on Fhope’s website did not constitute trademark use under Class 7 but rather under Class 35 (advertising services), for which SIGNODE IP did not hold registration.

Chang Tsi countered with analysis referencing the Trademark Examination Guidelines, emphasizing that webpage promotion linked directly to product sales qualifies as trademark use in the relevant class (in this case, Class 7). We argued that the mark was being used in a way that identified the source of goods and misled consumers—core functions of trademark use.

The MSB ultimately accepted this view and proceeded under the trademark infringement framework.

4. High Fine Achieved through Cumulative Evidence

Although Fhope had not previously been penalized by administrative authorities, Chang Tsi presented a comprehensive timeline showing that:

• Fhope was first warned in 2021;
• Infringement persisted into 2024;
• Rectification was partial and insincere.

To strengthen the penalty argument, the team submitted:

• Extensive evidence of Fhope’s continued misuse;
• Exposure data from the infringing pages;
• Records of client communications and demand letters;
• Usage evidence and brand recognition documentation from SIGNODE IP and its subsidiaries.

By aligning their documentation with the MSB’s procedural and evidentiary expectations, the team facilitated a formal decision and maximized the penalty amount.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how administrative enforcement can be a powerful tool against online trademark infringement—even where no counterfeit goods are involved. With a focused legal strategy, strong documentation, and close coordination with enforcement bodies, rights holders can overcome the procedural barriers often associated with “invisible” infringements like webpage promotion.

It also serves as a valuable model for other IP owners seeking remedies in similar digital-use cases, and provides guidance for enforcement authorities on applying the Trademark Law in a modern, internet-driven market.