How can trademark owners enforce their intellectual property rights against infringement?

A case published by the People's Court Daily vividly illustrates the distinction between two types of violations: A cosmetics company owns the well-known registered trademark 'Florasis.' A cosmetic trading firm, on its website, split the characters 'Flora' and 'Sis' and embedded them separately into its product titles. As a result, when users searched for 'Florasis,' the trading firm’s link appeared in the search results; however, upon clicking through, users found no 'Florasis' branded products—only items from other brands. The court held that this conduct did not constitute trademark infringement. The rationale was that the defendant had not used 'Florasis' as a trademark in a prominent or distinctive manner, nor did the product page display the plaintiff’s registered trademark; thus, the use did not qualify as 'trademark use' under the Trademark Law. However, the court ruled that the conduct did amount to unfair competition. Its core reasoning was as follows: the 'Florasis' brand, through extensive use, had acquired high renown and strong source-identifying power. Without any legitimate connection to the brand, the defendant deliberately set 'Florasis'-related terms as search keywords—clearly intending to exploit the brand’s goodwill to divert online traffic and boost click-throughs. Objectively, this practice improperly intercepted customer attention that would otherwise have been directed to the rights holder, thereby reducing the latter’s transaction opportunities. Such behavior constitutes parasitic 'free-riding,' violating the principles of good faith and accepted business ethics, and undermines fair market competition. Therefore, conduct that does not involve trademark use per se—but maliciously leverages the reputation of another party’s commercial identifier to gain an unfair competitive advantage—is typically governed by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In contrast, unauthorized direct use of a registered trademark is generally pursued as trademark infringement. 2. Handling Overlapping Claims of Rights Protection In practice, trademark infringement and unfair competition may overlap—for example, registering another party’s well-known trademark as one’s own enterprise name (i.e., 'riding on the fame of a renowned brand'). In such cases, how should rights holders choose the appropriate enforcement avenue? The Trademark Law and Article 6 (the 'Confusion Clause') of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stand in a 'special law vs. general law' relationship. Where applicable, the Trademark Law shall take precedence. If the conduct can be directly assessed and redressed under the Trademark Law’s infringement provisions, rights holders should rely on the Trademark Law. Second, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law may serve as a supplementary or alternative basis: where the contested sign is unregistered but has gained a certain degree of influence—or where independent acts such as false advertising are involved—the Anti-Unfair Competition Law may be invoked either additionally or independently. In litigation, if a single confusing act satisfies the elements of both laws, rights holders typically assert the claim most advantageous to them, and courts will examine both claims accordingly. III. Conclusion Trademark protection operates on a multi-tiered system. Criminal sanctions target counterfeiting offenses exhibiting both serious subjective malice and objectively severe harm. Within the civil domain, the Trademark Law provides robust, exclusive rights protection for registered trademarks, while the Anti-Unfair Competition Law offers residual, principle-based protection grounded in good faith for unregistered commercial identifiers that have nonetheless acquired source-identifying significance. Accurately identifying the essential nature of infringing conduct—and mastering the boundaries and underlying logic between these legal frameworks—is critically important both for rights holders seeking effective remedies and for operators striving to maintain compliance and mitigate legal risk. Footnotes and References: [1] The 'Isolated Observation Method' generally refers to assessing trademark similarity by evaluating each mark separately, without side-by-side comparison. The 'Comparative Observation Method,' by contrast, involves placing the marks side by side for direct visual comparison. He Shunqi, Attorney at Beijing Jingdu Law Firm; LL.M., School of Law, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Specializing in intellectual property crimes, cybercrime, and criminal asset recovery, he has published over 100,000 words on intellectual property research and authored the book 'Case Studies on Cybercrime.'

Multiple stores have already been frozen via TRO; 'Food Titan' initiates TRO enforcement action, holding 323 trademarks including Oreo, Chips Ahoy!, Extra, LU, and Cadbury [Case No. 26-cv-3695].

Renowned U.S. IP law firm Flener IP Law, LLC represents Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC—the core brand entity of Mondelez International—in filing a trademark infringement lawsuit (Case No. 26-cv-248) seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the U.S. This case builds upon prior precedent established in Case No. 25-cv-3695, focusing on the iconic American retro snack IP design style. It breaks beyond traditional food-only enforcement boundaries to cover a full range of categories—including snacks, packaging, toys, grinders, and accessory merchandise—specifically targeting cross-border sellers’ coordinated mass-listing strategies, community-based evasion of customs inspections, and image theft combined with SEO keyword hijacking. Infringing sellers face consequences including delisting of product links, account suspension, fund freezes, and potential multimillion-dollar damages. Case Information Case Number: 26-cv-3695 Plaintiff Brand: Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC Claim Type: Trademark Infringement Filing Date: May 28, 2026 Representing Law Firm: Flener IP Law, LLC Brand Overview Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC (‘Intercontinental Great Brands Limited’) is a globally renowned food and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) enterprise specializing in brand management, marketing, and product innovation. It owns and manages numerous internationally influential brands.

Mondelēz International in Trademark Dispute Over Cadbury 'Snowball' Chocolate

just now

Mondelēz International has demanded vegan brand Moo Free remove its 'White Choccy Snowballs' citing trademark infringement against Cadbury Snowballs ahead of the Christmas period. Moo Free contests the claim, stating the term is generic and they were unaware of the trademark.

theguardian

2026-11-02

Mondelēz International in Trademark Dispute Over Cadbury 'Snowball' Chocolate

Mondelēz International in Trademark Dispute Over Cadbury 'Snowball' Chocolate

FAQ