Where to start

In the first half of 2026, the city's market supervision system diligently followed the directives of the Municipal Party Committee, the Municipal Government, and the Provincial Market Supervision Bureau. They significantly enhanced administrative protection for intellectual property, strictly cracked down on IP infringement, and worked to create a fair and orderly innovation environment. The following are the typical cases of intellectual property administrative protection released for the first half of 2026.

Why just 10 ASX 200 shares?

Case 1: Huaishang District Market Supervision Bureau Handles Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute for "An Egg Tray for an Incubator"

Case Summary: On September 26, 2025, the claimant, Bengbu a certain Equipment Co., Ltd., requested the Huaishang District Market Supervision Bureau to handle a patent infringement matter with the respondent regarding "An Egg Tray for an Incubator" (Patent No.: 2018220577720.8). The Huaishang District Bureau accepted the request on October 9, 2025. The respondent, Bengbu a certain Electronic Equipment Co., Ltd., without permission from the patentee, manufactured and sold egg tray products identical to the claimant's patent on the market, infringing upon the claimant's utility model patent for "An Egg Tray for an Incubator" and harming the claimant's legitimate rights. The respondent claimed that the products it produced were significantly different from the patent in question and did not constitute infringement. The Huaishang District Market Supervision Bureau formed a collegial panel on January 27, 2026, and conducted an oral hearing on this case. According to Article 64, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China: "The scope of protection of an invention or utility model patent shall be determined by the content of its claims. The description and drawings may be used to interpret the claims." Article 39, Paragraph 1 stipulates: "If the alleged infringing technical solution contains technical features identical or equivalent to all the technical features recorded in the patent claim, it shall be deemed to fall within the scope of patent protection. If the technical features of the alleged infringing technical solution are missing one or more technical features recorded in the claim compared to all the technical features recorded in the claim, or if one or more technical features are neither identical nor equivalent, it shall be deemed not to fall within the scope of patent protection." The alleged infringing product and the patent in question are both egg trays, belonging to the same type of product. When determining whether the alleged infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent in question, the design technology of the alleged infringing product should be compared with the design technology of the patent in question. Based on the comparison table of technical features between the utility model patent in question and the alleged infringing product, as well as the expert panel's judgment opinion, an administrative ruling was made: The technical solution of the alleged infringing product did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent "An Egg Tray for an Incubator" (ZL201822057720.8), and thus did not constitute infringement. Typical Significance: This case illustrates the "all-elements" rule in patent infringement determination, highlighting the professionalism and fairness of administrative rulings. During the case handling, the investigating authority invited experts for appraisal, comparing the alleged infringing product with the patent claims feature by feature. It was found that the product lacked the key technical feature of "having support plates on all three inner walls," ultimately leading to the conclusion of no infringement. This ruling strictly adhered to the determination rule that "the alleged infringing technical solution must contain all technical features identical or equivalent to those recorded in the patent claim." It not only upheld the seriousness of the patent system but also avoided undue interference with non-infringing enterprises, protecting the normal business operations of market entities. This demonstrates the precision and efficiency of grassroots-level intellectual property administrative protection.

Case 2: Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau Investigates and Punishes Ning a certain for Producing and Selling Liquor Infringing on the Exclusive Right to Use a Well-known Baijiu Registered Trademark

Case Summary: On January 28, 2026, the Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau investigated and punished Ning a certain for producing and selling liquor that infringed on the exclusive right to use a well-known baijiu registered trademark. As the party's actions were suspected of constituting a crime, the case was transferred to the public security authorities. On January 20, 2025, a complaint was received reporting that the party, Ning a certain, was promoting and selling infringing counterfeit liquor around Guzhen County and Huaiyuan County. Preliminary investigation revealed that the party produced the infringing counterfeit liquor elsewhere and then promoted it around Guzhen and Huaiyuan Counties via phone calls and on-site visits. On January 28, 2025, law enforcement officers from the Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau, along with public security authorities, went to Chaohu City, Hefei City, and seized over 2,700 bottles of infringing counterfeit liquor involving multiple well-known brands at the party's production site. Additionally, over 1,100 sets of packaging materials like bottles and boxes, and 5 machines including coders, balers, sealers, and filling machines were seized, with the case value exceeding 600,000 yuan. The party's actions violated Article 57, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China. Due to the large amount involved, the party was suspected of committing a crime. The Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau, in accordance with Article 27 of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 3 of the Regulations on the Transfer of Suspected Criminal Cases by Administrative Law Enforcement Agencies, transferred the case to the public security authorities for investigation and punishment. Typical Significance: The New Year's and Spring Festival periods are peak seasons for baijiu consumption. Timely interception of counterfeit products entering the market effectively safeguards the "safety on the tip of the tongue" and public health. Strict crackdown on infringement acts purifies the pre-holiday market environment, protects the rights and interests of legitimate enterprises and brands, and promotes fair competition. Furthermore, the close coordination between administrative and criminal procedures during the case handling demonstrates the resolute "zero-tolerance" attitude of regulatory authorities and public security agencies towards infringement and counterfeiting, creating a strong deterrent against criminals. This joint operation showcases the effectiveness of cross-departmental collaborative law enforcement, enhances public awareness and confidence in intellectual property protection, and fosters a safe and reassuring consumption atmosphere.

Case 3: Wuhe County Market Supervision Bureau Investigates and Punishes Anhui a certain Food Industry Co., Ltd. for Using a Trademark Similar to Another's Registered Trademark on Similar Goods Without Authorization

Case Summary: In February 2026, the Wuhe County Market Supervision Bureau, upon receiving a report, conducted an on-site inspection of Anhui a certain Food Industry Co., Ltd. The company primarily engages in tea packaging and production. Law enforcement officers discovered that, without permission from the holder of the "Longjing Tea" geographical indication certification trademark, the Zhejiang Agricultural Technology Extension Center, the company designed and printed its own packaging, using "Chunshan Longjing (Green Tea)" as the product name for packaging and selling green tea. "Longjing Tea" is a geographical indication certification trademark for Class 30 tea products, with exclusive rights valid until December 6, 2028. Investigation revealed that the party produced 300 bags of the involved green tea from September 2025, with a specification of 50g/bag, sold at 4 yuan/bag, all of which were sold out. The business turnover and illegal income were both 1200 yuan. There was no inventory at the site, and the party could not provide trademark authorization documents. This behavior constitutes using an identification similar to another's registered trademark as a product name for identical goods, which is likely to mislead the public, thus constituting trademark infringement. The Wuhe County Market Supervision Bureau legally filed a case, fixed multiple sets of evidence including report materials, production and sales records, and trademark ownership query screenshots, informed the party of its right to statement and defense, but the party failed to submit a defense within the time limit. As this was the party's first offense, it fully cooperated with the investigation and proactively submitted evidence, qualifying for a lighter penalty. The bureau ordered the party to correct its illegal behavior, confiscated the illegal income of 1200 yuan, and imposed a fine of 2000 yuan. Typical Significance: It clarifies that "Longjing Tea" is a geographical indication certification trademark. Even if used only as a product name on similar tea products without authorization, it can cause consumer confusion and constitutes trademark infringement. This corrects the erroneous belief of companies that "using an approximate name is acceptable as long as one's own factory name is marked." It reflects a law enforcement approach that balances leniency and strictness, considering the party's first offense, active cooperation, and low amount involved to impose a lighter penalty according to law, combining punishment with education, and guiding small and micro-enterprises towards standardized operations. As a geographical indication certification trademark, tea carries regional brand value. This case serves as a warning for food packaging companies to standardize product naming, proactively verify trademark authorization, and avoid "free-riding" on brand popularity.

Case 4: High-tech Zone Intellectual Property Dispute People's Mediation Committee Mediates Case of Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Infringing on Registered Trademark No. 53440278 "Pailunmei"

Case Summary: Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd., without obtaining any formal authorization, signing a trademark license contract, or paying licensing fees, unauthorizedly produced and sold aquatic products bearing the "Pailunmei" trademark. This infringing use by Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd. could easily cause distributors, farmers, and other relevant public in the aquatic industry to confuse the source of the goods, mistakenly believing the products were produced and supplied by Huai'an Beishui'an Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd., thus directly infringing on the registered trademark rights of Huai'an Beishui'an Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd. After the dispute arose, Huai'an Beishui'an Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd. proactively contacted Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd. to negotiate, demanding cessation of the infringement and acceptance of corresponding responsibility. However, due to significant differences, the parties failed to reach a consensus through self-negotiation. To efficiently resolve the conflict and protect its legitimate rights, Huai'an Beishui'an Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd. filed a mediation application with the Bengbu High-tech Zone Intellectual Property Dispute People's Mediation Committee. This dispute was jointly mediated by the High-tech Zone Intellectual Property Dispute People's Mediation Committee and the Bengbu High-tech Zone Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau. The mediators carefully verified key evidence such as trademark registration certificates, trademark transfer documents, and infringement evidence, confirming the clarity of the trademark rights and the established facts of infringement. Considering that both parties are entities in the aquatic industry, and to avoid lengthy litigation procedures that would increase costs for both sides, the mediators adhered to the principles of voluntariness, fairness, and mutual benefit, conducting legal education and mediation. On one hand, they explained the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law to Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd., clarifying that using another's registered trademark without authorization constitutes infringement and requires bearing legal responsibilities such as ceasing infringement and compensating for losses. On the other hand, they took into account the actual operations of the small and micro-enterprise, building a communication bridge to guide both parties away from confrontation and towards a win-win solution. After extensive coordination, the parties voluntarily reached a mediation agreement: 1. Huai'an Beishui'an Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd. authorizes Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd. to legally use Registered Trademark No. 53440278 "Pailunmei" for product production and sales, with an annual trademark usage fee of 600 yuan. Specific payment details are to be negotiated independently between the parties. 2. Upon signing the agreement, Huai'an Beishui'an Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd. will not pursue further legal liability against Anhui a certain Biotechnology Co., Ltd. for this trademark infringement, but if the respondent violates the terms of the agreement or commits infringement again, the applicant retains the right to pursue accountability according to law. Typical Significance: This case revitalized the value of intellectual property, achieving a mutually beneficial outcome for both parties. It broke away from the traditional dispute resolution model of "cease infringement upon discovery, impose compensation upon infringement," transforming the adversarial infringement dispute into a legal trademark licensing cooperation based on industry realities. This fully protected the legitimate IP rights of the trademark owner, realizing the commercial value of the trademark asset, while preserving the existing brand operation resources for the small and micro-enterprise, helping it operate stably, and balancing the strict protection of IP with the healthy development of market entities. It strengthened legal education, solidifying corporate compliance awareness. The mediation process concurrently conducted IP legal publicity, correcting the cognitive misconception of "unconscious infringement" among small business operators, enabling them to clearly understand the legal rules for authorized trademark use and the serious consequences of IP infringement. This effectively guides enterprises to respect IP and operate legally and compliantly, preventing similar trademark infringement disputes at the source.

Case 5: Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau Investigates and Punishes He a certain for Selling Goods Infringing on Registered Trademark Rights

Case Summary: On July 17, 2023, upon receiving a report, the Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau, jointly with the public security department, conducted a surprise inspection of the warehouse of a general store operated by He a certain in Bailianpo, Huaiyuan County. At the scene, several cosmetics awaiting sale were seized, including 1,422 bottles of Safeguard series body wash, 3,768 bottles of Rejoice series shampoo, 1,853 bottles of Head & Shoulders series shampoo produced by Guangzhou Procter & Gamble Co., Ltd., and 66 bottles of Clear series shampoo produced by Unilever (China) Co., Ltd. Anti-counterfeiting personnel from Procter & Gamble and Unilever initially identified the products as suspected counterfeits. The law enforcement officers immediately took compulsory administrative measures of seizure. On July 20, 2023, as the value of the involved products met the threshold for criminal case filing, the bureau transferred the case to the Huaishang District Branch of the Bengbu Public Security Bureau. After in-depth investigation, the public security authorities concluded that existing evidence could not prove that He a certain had the subjective intent of knowingly buying and selling fakes, and issued a "Decision to Withdraw the Case" on June 26, 2025. The bureau subsequently re-filed the case for investigation on August 1, 2025. To accurately assess the value of the infringing cosmetic products, law enforcement officers commissioned Beijing Huarui Xing Real Estate Appraisal Consulting Co., Ltd. on August 28, 2025, to appraise the value, which was determined to be a total of 122,644 yuan. Further investigation revealed that He a certain failed to establish and implement a purchase inspection and recording system as required by law and could not provide legal purchase invoices for the involved cosmetics. On March 12, 2026, the Bengbu Market Supervision Bureau issued an administrative penalty decision against He a certain, the operator of the former original Bailianpo a certain General Store in Huaiyuan County: confiscating 7,043 bottles of illegally operated cosmetics, imposing a fine of 12,264.4 yuan (0.1 times the value of the goods), resulting in a total forfeiture and penalty of 13,264.4 yuan. Typical Significance: This case serves as a model for "administrative-criminal reverse connection - case withdrawal and return" law enforcement in the field of counterfeit cosmetics: 1. It clarifies that legally obtained evidence from criminal proceedings, such as interrogation records and formal identifications by rights holders, can be directly used for administrative case determination. It uses third-party asset valuation to lock in the illegal amount, avoiding redundant law enforcement and providing a model for evidence transition in similar "withdrawal and return" cases. 2. It implements the principle of proportionality under the "four strictest" framework, considering the party's first offense, lack of subjective intent to sell fakes, and cooperation with the investigation. It refers to Anhui's local discretionary benchmark to break the minimum penalty limit and reduce the fine, avoiding mechanical law enforcement that could crush small entities, aligning with the principle of combining punishment with education. 3. It imposes separate liability for "failure to establish a purchase inspection system," clarifying that even if downstream retailers have no infringement intent, they are still liable for failing to fulfill their statutory inspection obligations, compelling responsibility within the distribution chain. 4. It strictly applies the administrative penalty rule of "one penalty for the same act based on the most serious offense" to handle the concurrence of trademark infringement and labeling violations, preventing double jeopardy or lenient treatment. This discretionary logic is replicable.

Case 6: Yuhui District Intellectual Property People's Mediation Committee Mediates Trademark Dispute Between Beijing a certain Family Service Co., Ltd. and Bengbu Yuhui District a certain Postpartum Care Center

Case Summary: Beijing a certain Family Service Co., Ltd. authorized the use of its trademark to Bengbu Yuhui District a certain Postpartum Care Center through a contract. The authorization agreement expired in December 2024. After the agreement expired, Bengbu Yuhui District a certain Postpartum Care Center continued to use the "Aimaijia" trademark for promotion in its physical stores and online shop. The claimant believed that the respondent's actions infringed upon the claimant's registered trademark rights, causing significant impact on the respondent's business and commercial reputation, and resulting in economic losses. The claimant filed a mediation request with the Yuhui District Intellectual Property People's Mediation Committee regarding the trademark rights infringement dispute over the "Aimaijia" trademark (Trademark No. 75397269). Through mediation by the Yuhui District Intellectual Property Dispute People's Mediation Committee, the parties voluntarily reached the following agreement: 1. Bengbu Yuhui District a certain Postpartum Care Center compensates Beijing a certain Family Service Co., Ltd. for economic losses amounting to 20,000 yuan on the date of signing this agreement. 2. The respondent commits to cease the infringing actions from the date of signing this agreement (including removing physical signage and deleting online promotional materials, such as videos, involving the claimant's trademark). The claimant accepts the respondent's commitment and agrees not to pursue the respondent's civil, administrative, or criminal liability (except in cases where the respondent violates this agreement or commits infringement again). Typical Significance: This case clarifies that trademark licensing has a specific duration. Continuing to use the trademark without permission after the authorization expires constitutes infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. It corrects the compliance cognitive misunderstanding of market entities and reinforces the concept of protecting the boundaries of trademark rights. By relying on a diversified IP dispute resolution mechanism, the case efficiently resolved the dispute before litigation, reducing the costs of rights protection and case handling for both parties. At the same time, it legally protected the brand rights of the enterprise, severely regulated "free-riding" infringement, while also adopting a prudent fault-tolerant principle to give operators room for rectification, balancing the rights and interests of all parties, and helping to create an IP business environment that respects innovation and promotes fair competition.

Case 7: Huaiyuan County Market Supervision Bureau Investigates and Punishes Huaiyuan Baoji a certain Supermarket for Suspected Sale of Goods Infringing on Another's Registered Trademark Rights

Case Summary: On May 13, 2026, law enforcement officers from the Huaiyuan County Market Supervision Bureau, acting on a complaint tip, inspected Huaiyuan Baoji a certain Supermarket according to law. During the inspection of the supermarket's cleaning and chemical area and warehouse, officers found: 172 bottles of "Liushen" anti-itch cooling water, priced at 9.9 yuan/bottle, specification: net content 180ml, expiry date and batch number 20290310 CBPBCFZ; and 173 bottles of "Liushen" mosquito repellent cooling water, priced at 9.9 yuan/bottle, specification: 180ml, production date and batch number 20260310 BHKHJDS. These two types of "Liushen" cooling water were identified by Shanghai Jahwa United Co., Ltd. as products infringing on its registered trademark rights. Officers immediately implemented compulsory administrative measures of seizure and photographed the evidence for documentation. Investigation revealed that the "Liushen" trademark is a registered trademark of Shanghai Jahwa United Co., Ltd. in Class 3, with Registration Certificate No. 1116603, valid until October 7, 2027. Identified by Shanghai Jahwa United Co., Ltd., the involved cooling water products were counterfeit products infringing on the rights holder's registered trademark. Further investigation revealed that the party purchased from illegal channels 172 bottles of "Liushen" anti-itch cooling water and 173 bottles of "Liushen" mosquito repellent cooling water at a purchase price of 8 yuan/bottle, selling at 9.9 yuan/bottle, resulting in an illegal turnover of 3,415.5 yuan. The party could not provide purchase invoices or other supporting documents for the involved cooling water, nor could it explain the legal source or identify the provider. On March 12, 2026, the Huaiyuan County Market Supervision Bureau issued an administrative penalty decision against Huaiyuan Baoji a certain Supermarket: 1. Confiscation of the 172 bottles of "Liushen" anti-itch cooling water and 173 bottles of "Liushen" mosquito repellent cooling water that infringed on another's registered trademark rights; 2. A fine of 6,831 yuan. Typical Significance: The investigation and handling of this case demonstrate the market supervision department's resolute attitude and effective measures in combating acts like trademark infringement and patent counterfeiting. It reflects the importance placed on IP protection and consumer rights protection, effectively cracking down on trademark infringement and illegal activities, purifying the market environment, and safeguarding the safety of life and property for consumers.