On April 17, 2025, the Zhejiang High People’s Court held a press conference to release the 2024 Zhejiang Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Analysis Report and the Top 10 Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection.

The case represented by Landing lawyers Shen Xianlei and Huang Ke — Inner Mongolia King Deer Co., Ltd. v. Ye X, Hangzhou L Clothing Co., Ltd., Beijing X Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd., Hangzhou K Clothing Co., Ltd., Tongxiang X Trademark Agency Co., Ltd., Shang X, and Others concerning trademark infringement and unfair competition — was selected as one of the Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Protection Cases in Zhejiang for 2024.

Key Facts and Typical Significance

In this case, the defendants used the registered trademark “Da Deer King” （达鹿王）to free-ride on and exploit the goodwill of the King Deer brand. The original registrant of the accused “Da Deer King” trademark was a trademark agency company located in Tongxiang. The assignee of the “Da Deer King” trademark was a Hong Kong company, and the licensee that received authorization from the Hong Kong company and directly carried out the infringing acts was a clothing company in Hangzhou. Both companies were actually controlled by Ye X.

The Beijing X intellectual property agency company involved was the mastermind of the entire infringement scheme. In fact, it first purchased the “Da Deer King” trademark itself and then transferred it to the Hong Kong company. During this process, the original registrant of the “Da Deer King” trademark issued an authorization letter to the direct infringer at the direction of this agency company, thus directly participating in the implementation of the infringement.

Reasons for Suing the Original Trademark Squatter, the Assignee, and the Agency Company

In infringement cases, it is often very difficult to hold any one of these parties — the original trademark squatter, the assignee, or the agency company — directly liable for infringement. Why, then, did this case involve claims against all three entities at the same time?

1. The malicious preemptive registration by the original registrant was the very condition that enabled the infringement and the root source of the malicious intent. Without the original registrant’s bad-faith registration, the subsequent infringing acts could not have occurred. The original registrant’s act of trademark squatting is akin to secretly making a key that can open the safe containing the goodwill of the King Deer brand. Although the registrant did not directly use the key to open the safe, the act clearly infringed upon the rights of the trademark owner by creating the possibility that the safe could be opened at any time.

2. The assignee of the “Da Deer King” trademark (who also directly carried out the infringing acts) is equivalent to the person who used that key to open the King Deer brand’s safe and steal its valuable goodwill. The malicious intent of this assignee, who sought to free-ride on the brand, is identical to that of the original registrant, and through the assignee’s infringing conduct, this malicious intent resulted in actual harm.
3. The role of the intellectual property agency company in this case was the most egregious. On the one hand, it identified the party who would directly carry out the act of free-riding on the goodwill of the King Deer brand. Leveraging its professional expertise, it also located the trademark that had been maliciously preemptively registered by the original squatter — in other words, it helped the infringer find the “key” to open the safe containing King Deer’s brand goodwill. The agency then purchased this “key” itself, resold it to the infringer for profit, and participated in the entire infringement process from beginning to end.

Why the Agency Company Bears 100% Joint and Several Liability

Some people do not understand why the agency company in this case was held jointly and severally liable for 100% of the damages. This may be because certain earlier reports overlooked the fact that the agency company directly participated in the infringing acts. Given the complexity of this case, not all facts could be fully presented in media coverage.

In reality, pages 55–59 of the judgment provide a detailed analysis of the infringement model and the allocation of liability. The reasons for each party’s liability are explained with great clarity — especially the portion addressing the agency company’s responsibility.

In closing, we express our gratitude to the judges of both the first and second instance courts. Without their dedicated efforts, such an outstanding judgment would not have been possible. We also sincerely appreciate the encouragement, recognition, and support from our colleagues in the industry — your encouragement means a great deal to us.