What International and Chinese Businesses Should Know: Lessons from 2025 Enforcement in China

08 Apr 2026

by Silvia Capraro

At the beginning of 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) issued a press release related to the most interesting intellectual property (IP) enforcement cases from 2025. The main purpose of the statement is a clear message to International and Chinese businesses: China continues to strengthen administrative enforcement against counterfeiting and trademark infringement, with a particular focus on cross-regional action and criminal referrals in serious cases.

For both Chinese and foreign companies, the cases provide an useful insight into how IP enforcement works in practice and where legal and commercial risks most often arise.

Administrative Enforcement: A Distinctive Feature of China’s IP System

Unlike some jurisdictions that rely primarily on civil litigation, China offers a dual-track system for IP protection:

Administrative enforcement led by market supervision authorities such as Market Supervision administration (MSA)
Civil litigation before courts
Criminal prosecution in serious cases, when the case meets particular requirements such as the number of goods sized during an administrative enforcement

About SAMR, the Authority and and its local branches play a central role in the administrative route. They can conduct inspections, seize infringing goods, impose fines, and transfer cases to police when criminal thresholds are met.

Key Enforcement Themes in 2025

1. Large-Scale, Cross-Regional Crackdowns

Several cases involved nationwide investigations spanning dozens of provinces. Authorities targeted organized supply chains rather than isolated retailers, dismantling networks involved in manufacturing, distributing, and selling counterfeit goods.

This reflects a strategic shift: enforcement is no longer limited to storefront seizures but now focuses on the entire commercial ecosystem behind infringement.

2. Equal Protection for Domestic and Foreign Brands

Many of the cases involved internationally recognized brands, including: Adidas, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Dyson, Lululemon Nike.

To mention just the latest, for example, last March the Tongren Munipal Market Supervision Bureau of Guizhou Province sized a total of 7,821 pairs of shoes bearing fake Nike logo for a value of almost 4 million rmb. Suspect of the alleged illegal activities have been placed under release on bail pending trial.

By highlighting cases involving both domestic and foreign rights holders, SAMR wants to emphasized that China’s enforcement policy applies equally regardless of brand origin. For multinational companies operating in China, this reinforces the idea of the effectives of administrative enforcement tools.

3. Focus on Online Sales Channels

A recurring pattern in the 2025 cases was the use of:

Multiple online stores
False “overseas purchase” claims
Disguised inventory descriptions
Fragmented e-commerce operations

As a results of the increasing digitalization, enforcement authorities increasingly rely on electronic data collection, platform transaction records, and big data analysis to trace sellers and identify supply chains. In some cases, thousands of transaction records were reviewed to establish criminal liability.

For businesses, this means that digital footprints matter. Online infringement is no longer low-risk.

An example is the case handled by the Haining Municipal Market Supervision Bureau, where it is was found an online-store selling bag and clothes bearing famous foreigner trademark that turned out to be managed by Mr. Mei, who was traced to multiple upstream suppliers.

At the end of the enforcement action, a total of 3,684 counterfeit clothing items, 8 boxes of fake trademark labels, and 5,000 hardware accessories were sized., involving 7 illegal business entities.

4. Supply Chain Accountability

What the report reveals is also that in the most recent times the authorities are targeting not only the counterfeit manufacturers but other phases of the supply chain, such as Downstream resellers who knowingly purchased infringing goods

Contractors who used counterfeit components in projects
Warehouses storing large quantities of counterfeit goods

Chinese trademark law imposes liability not only on producers but also on sellers who “know or should know” that goods infringe registered trademarks.

This expands compliance responsibilities throughout the supply chain and help to prevent the spread of illegal goods through the market.

5. Criminal Referrals in High-Value Cases

Where the value of goods or sales volume exceeded statutory thresholds, cases were transferred to public security authorities. Outcomes included:

Criminal detention
Arrest
Prosecution

The increasing frequency of criminal referrals signals that large-scale counterfeiting is treated not merely as a regulatory violation, but as a serious economic crime.

An interesting case happened in July 2025, when the Urumqi Municipal Market Supervision Bureau uncovered a major trademark infringement case involving an individual, who was found storing and selling counterfeit Hyundai and Kia auto parts.

During their inspection, authorities seized 134 types of products totaling 8,550 items, including brake pads, spark plugs, and packaging materials, all bearing unauthorized trademarks.

The goods lacked proper labeling, manufacturer details, and conformity certificates, and Chen had failed to carry out the required inspection obligations when purchasing them. Investigations revealed that since 2025 the Chinese individual had been distributing counterfeit auto parts in Urumqi Auto Parts City, with the total value exceeding 1.58 million RMB.

Given the scale of the infringement, the case was transferred to public security authorities, who imposed criminal coercive measures against him.

What This Means for Businesses

For Brand Owners

Administrative enforcement remains a powerful tool. It can be faster and more cost-effective than civil litigation.
Providing detailed infringement clues helps. The importance for the right holders to carefully monitor the market
Cross-regional coordination is improving. Enforcement is no longer confined to one locality. The protection can be cross-regional.

Last, but absolutely not least, foreign companies should ensure that their trademarks are properly registered in China, as registration remains the foundation for enforcement.

For Manufacturers, Distributors, and Retailers

Due diligence is critical. Purchasing low-priced goods without verifying their source can result in legal implications.
Online sales are closely monitored. Multiple storefront strategies do not eliminate traceability of the source of the products.
Record-keeping matters. Inability to provide lawful source documentation often strengthens enforcement action.

Businesses operating in China should implement internal compliance procedures, including supplier verification and documentation retention to eliminate the risk of involvement with counterfeiting activities and nonetheless to be ready to face alleged claims from the authorities.

Conclusion

The 2025 enforcement cases illustrate a clear trend: China is intensifying trademark enforcement through coordinated administrative action, digital investigation techniques, and stronger integration with criminal prosecution. The emphasis on dismantling full production and distribution chains suggests a move toward a finally systemic enforcement.

From one hand, the risks for the manufactures and sellers is increasing and the needs to operate strictly abiding the law is growing.

On the other hand, international companies are finally receiving a clear message of effectiveness when it comes to protection of IP rights, if and when properly registered and actively monitored.

In today’s enforcement environment, intellectual property protection in China is not only a legal issue, but a strategic business consideration.