By Skye Zou
On April 30, 2025, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court released the 2024 Annual Cases (in both Chinese and English, see here), marking the official launch of an annual tradition aimed at enhancing the exemplary and guiding role of judicial precedents in the field of intellectual property. This initiative highlights the Court’s continued commitment to innovation-driven development, judicial transparency, and global leadership in IP adjudication.
Since its establishment on November 6, 2014, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has positioned itself as a central force in shaping China’s IP jurisprudence. Known for its professionalism, consistency, and international orientation, the Court has adjudicated numerous influential cases that have contributed significantly to the development of a law-based business environment in China.
The Case III: Invalidation of Dou Hai Yin
This year’s landmark cases reflect not only the evolving complexity of IP disputes in China but also the country’s growing influence in shaping international IP governance norms. The annual case selection serves as a legal compass for enterprises, rights holders, and policymakers navigating the global IP landscape.
Among the standout cases, we want to analyze here the Case Ⅲ: Administrative Litigation Case Involving Invalidation of the “Dou Hai Yin” Trademark Right.
Parties Involved:
Plaintiff: Beijing XX Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Dou Yin” - Tik Tok operator)
Defendant: National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)
Third Party: Shanghai XX Technology Co., Ltd. (registrant of “Dou Hai Yin”)
Background:
In 2018, Shanghai XX Technology registered the trademark “Dou Hai Yin” in Class 39 (travel reservation services). Beijing XX Network Company filed an invalidation request in 2022, arguing that “Dou Hai Yin” imitated its well-known “Dou Yin” (Tik Tok) brand, violating Article 13(3) of the Trademark Law.
Initially, CNIPA rejected the claim, reasoning that “Dou Yin” had only been in use for a short time and lacked sufficient recognition to qualify as a well-known mark.
However, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court overturned this decision, finding that “Dou Yin” had experienced explosive growth, reaching over 500 million Monthly Active Users by mid-2018 and more than 3.1 billion total downloads. The use of “Dou Hai Yin” along with promotional phrases like “Check-in with Dou Yin” was seen as a malicious attempt to free-ride on Dou Yin’s brand reputation.
The Beijing High People’s Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, formally recognizing “Dou Yin” as a well-known trademark and granting it cross-class protection.
Why This Case Is Interesting
1. Modernizes the Recognition Criteria for Well-Known Trademarks
Traditionally, Chinese trademark authorities required a minimum use period of 3–5 years to qualify as a well-known mark. But this case breaks from that standard by acknowledging that in the digital economy, brand popularity can skyrocket within months, not years. “Dou Yin” (TikTok) achieved near-total national visibility in less than two years, and the court recognized this as sufficient for well-known status.
2. Recognizes the Role of Internet Metrics in Trademark Evaluation
The case sets a new precedent by allowing courts to consider internet-specific indicators (like user growth, engagement time, andmarket penetration) when determining whether a mark is widely known. This adapts the law to the attention economy, where brand equity is often built through user traffic rather than traditional advertising.
3. Strengthens Cross-Class Protection in the Platform Economy
“Dou Yin” is registered for digital media and entertainment, not travel services. Yet the courts found that the use of “Dou Hai Yin” in a non-competing class still constituted brand dilution and unfair competition, as it could confuse consumers and erode brand distinctiveness. This demonstrates how platform brands, which often span multiple verticals, need broader protection than traditional goods.
4. A Firm Stance Against Trademark Free-Riding
The court highlighted intent to imitate and improper use of slogans associated with “Dou Yin,” sending a clear message that malicious registrations and brand piggybackingwon’t be tolerated, even when the infringing party uses a different class of goods or services.
Implications for Brand Owners and IP Practitioners
For digital platforms: Rapidly growing brands should consider applying for multi-class registration early to preempt free-riding.
For IP lawyers: This case shows that evidence beyond traditional commercial sales, like app downloads, active user counts, and media reach, can be compelling in well-known mark claims.
For regulators and courts: The decision reflects a more nuanced, adaptive approach to IP protection in a fast-evolving tech landscape.
Final Thought
This case marks a milestone in the evolution of trademark law in China. By acknowledging the shortened brand-building cycle in the digital era and expanding the tools courts can use to evaluate fame, it shows the judiciary’s readiness to protect innovation and support high-value brands.
It’s not just a win for Dou Yin: it’s a victory for all platform-based enterprises navigating IP challenges in a hyper-connected world.