When a Trademark Becomes a Symbol of Piracy: The Biquge Case and the "Adverse Effect" in Chinese Trademark Law

15 Jul 2026

By Seven Liu

In the digital economy, some names acquire meanings far beyond their literal wording. They become shorthand for business models, consumer habits, and sometimes unlawful conduct. A recent decision by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court demonstrates how Chinese trademark law is increasingly prepared to take those broader social meanings into account.

In its 2025 Annual Typical Cases, the court selected a landmark dispute involving the trademark “Biquge” (笔趣阁). 笔趣阁 is a coined brand name chosen to evoke the image of a place where people enjoy reading and writing literature, especially online novels.

In practice, Biquge has become synonymous with a large network of unauthorized online novel websites. Over time, the name 笔趣阁 has been adopted by hundreds of pirate websites that copy and distribute copyrighted web novels and other literary works without authorization.

The case is significant because it confirms that a trademark may be invalidated not because the words themselves are offensive, but because their established meaning within a particular industry has become inseparably linked to unlawful activity and harm to the public interest.

For copyright owners, digital platforms, and international businesses, the ruling offers an important illustration of how China’s “adverse effects” provision can be used to address trademark registrations that seek to legitimize symbols associated with piracy and other disruptive conduct.

From Generic Name to Industry Symbol

The term “Biquge,” when viewed in isolation, appears neutral. It does not contain vulgar, deceptive, or politically sensitive language. On its face, there is nothing inherently objectionable about the wording.

Its commercial significance, however, evolved in a very different direction.

Over time, “Biquge” became the name most commonly associated with websites and mobile applications that provided access to pirated online literature.

Many of these platforms reproduced novels without authorization and often generated revenue through advertising and traffic monetization. The name was repeatedly copied by numerous websites using variations of “Biquge,” creating a recognizable ecosystem of piracy-oriented services.

As a result, within China’s online literature sector, the term came to function less as a distinctive brand and more as a widely understood reference to unauthorized content distribution.

The Challenge to the Registered Trademark

The trademark had originally been filed in 2016 and was later assigned to a technology company.

Five affiliated companies, including a Shanghai-based information technology company, initiated invalidation proceedings before the China National Intellectual Property Administration.

They argued that the mark had acquired a well-established association with piracy, unauthorized dissemination of literary works, and online environments containing inappropriate material. In their view, granting exclusive trademark rights over such a sign would undermine copyright protection and disrupt the lawful development of the digital publishing industry.

CNIPA rejected the invalidation request.

The challengers then appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted a broader and more contextual approach to its analysis.

The court first acknowledged that the term “Biquge” (笔趣阁), viewed in isolation, does not carry any inherently negative meaning.

At the same time, it emphasized that the determination of whether a mark has “adverse effects” cannot be limited to the dictionary meaning of the words themselves. Instead, the analysis must take into account how the sign is actually perceived within the relevant industry and by the relevant public.

Based on the evidence presented in the case, the court found that, prior to the filing date of the disputed trademark and continuing after its registration, numerous websites and mobile applications operating under the name “Biquge” had become widely established on the internet as platforms that generated profits through the unauthorized distribution of online literary works. The widespread existence of these piracy-based websites and applications had seriously disrupted the normal development and order of the online literature industry.

From the perspective of the general public in the online literature sector, “Biquge” had come to be widely recognized as a “gathering place for pirated online novels” or as a common search term associated with unauthorized literary content.

In practice, the term had evolved into a form of shorthand or coded reference for “piracy.”

The court held that if the trademark were allowed to obtain and continue to enjoy registration protection for goods and services related to online literature, it would have an adverse impact on the public order of copyright administration and on the broader public interest of the online literature industry.

On this basis, the court concluded that the trademark violated Article 10(1)(8) of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which prohibits signs that have “other adverse effects.” Accordingly, the court revoked the decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).

The judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal by the Beijing High People’s Court.

A Broader Interpretation of “Other Adverse Effects”

The most important contribution of this case lies in its interpretation of “other adverse effects.”

Traditionally, this provision has often been applied to marks that are intrinsically problematic, such as those involving offensive language, politically sensitive terms, or misleading references. In the “Biquge” case, the courts adopted a more contextual approach.

The ruling confirms that even a linguistically neutral sign may be barred from registration if the relevant public has formed a widespread understanding that the sign represents conduct harmful to public order or the public interest.

This approach reflects an important principle. Trademark legitimacy depends not only on the semantic content of a sign, but also on the social meaning it has acquired through actual use.

Implications for the Digital Economy

The decision is particularly significant for industries shaped by online traffic and platform recognition.

In the digital environment, names and symbols can quickly accumulate reputational meaning. Some become associated with infringement, regulatory avoidance, or exploitative business models.

If such signs were allowed to obtain trademark protection, they could acquire the appearance of legal legitimacy and gain the benefit of exclusive rights under trademark law.

The “Biquge” judgment rejects that possibility.

By invalidating the trademark, the court removed a potential legal shield for a term that had become deeply linked to copyright infringement. This not only protects authors and legitimate publishing platforms, but also reinforces judicial support for China’s broader policy objective of fostering a healthy online literature industry.

Lessons for Brand Owners and International Businesses

For international companies, the case offers several practical lessons.

First, trademark registrability in China depends not only on formal distinctiveness, but also on broader public perception within the relevant market.

Second, industry reputation matters. A sign that has become associated with unlawful conduct may face challenges even if it appears neutral from a purely linguistic standpoint.

Third, China’s trademark system is increasingly aligned with wider policy goals, including the protection of copyright, digital governance, and fair market competition.

These considerations are especially relevant in sectors such as online publishing, gaming, social media, and artificial intelligence, where names and symbols can rapidly acquire meanings that extend beyond traditional branding functions.Conclusion

The “Biquge” case illustrates how Chinese courts are adapting trademark law to the realities of the digital economy.

A trademark is more than a collection of words. It carries the associations that consumers and industry participants attach to it. When those associations become synonymous with piracy and market disruption, trademark law may deny or withdraw protection even if the sign itself appears neutral.

Trademark rights are intended to support legitimate commercial activity and healthy market development. They are not available to sanitize symbols that have become widely recognized as markers of unlawful conduct.

In this way, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has reaffirmed an increasingly important principle in Chinese trademark law: public perception and public interest can be just as decisive as the words appearing on the trademark register.