When TikTok Becomes Court Evidence: China's 20 Million RMB Trademark Case

22 Jul 2026

By Cher Yang

A recent case selected by the Shandong High People's Court as part of its third batch of typical intellectual property cases involving punitive damages provides an important illustration of how Chinese courts are combining enhanced remedies with innovative evidentiary approaches to strengthen trademark protection.

The dispute centered on the well-known “DBN” (大北农) trademark used in the animal feed industry. Beyond confirming trademark infringement, the case is particularly noteworthy for two reasons.

First, it demonstrates how Chinese courts assess the statutory requirements of intentional infringement and serious circumstances in order to justify punitive damages.

Second, it shows how digital evidence, including short-video content from online platforms, can be used to estimate sales volumes and determine the compensation base when traditional accounting records are unavailable.

For both domestic and international brand owners, the decision offers valuable guidance on the increasingly sophisticated tools available in Chinese intellectual property litigation.

Background of the Dispute

Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co., Ltd. is the owner of the “DBN” and “大北农” (DaBeiNong) trademarks, which are registered for goods including animal feed. Beijing Kemou Biotechnology Co., Ltd. was an authorized non-exclusive licensee and had standing to enforce the trademark rights in its own name.

The principal defendant, Mr. Xu, had previously worked within the Dabeinong corporate group. After leaving the company, he established Qingdao Damou Animal Health Co., Ltd. and served as its legal representative. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Xu and his affiliated companies prominently used the “大北农” designation on feed products they manufactured and sold, thereby infringing the registered trademarks.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction and RMB 20 million in damages, requesting that punitive damages be applied.

In the first-instance proceedings before the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court, the court found that the signs displayed on the product packaging were identical or highly similar to the registered trademarks and were used on identical goods.

Because the signs functioned as trademarks and were likely to cause consumer confusion, the court held that infringement had occurred.

The court ordered Mr. Xu and three affiliated companies to pay RMB 20 million in damages. Several contract manufacturers were also held jointly liable within different scopes of responsibility.

The defendants appealed, but the Shandong High People's Court upheld the judgment in full.

From Infringement to Enhanced Liability

The true significance of the case lies not merely in the finding of infringement, but in the court’s detailed reasoning for imposing punitive damages and its creative use of electronic evidence to quantify the infringing business.

Establishing Intentional Infringement and Serious Circumstances

Under China’s Trademark Law and related judicial interpretations, punitive damages may be awarded when infringement is intentional and the circumstances are serious.

In this case, the court gave considerable weight to the defendant’s prior employment relationship with the trademark owner. Because of this background, the court concluded that Mr. Xu was fully aware of the reputation, market influence, and commercial value of the “DBN” trademarks.

The evidence also showed that after leaving the company, Mr. Xu established several enterprises incorporating the “大北农” name, thereby systematically leveraging the goodwill associated with the plaintiffs’ brand. Even after receiving warning letters, he continued the infringing activities.

The infringement was carried out through multiple affiliated entities, covering both production and sales, and continued over an extended period. The scale and organization of the conduct further supported a finding of serious circumstances.

A particularly important factor was the defendants’ refusal to produce accounting books and financial records during litigation. The court treated this failure as an obstruction to fact-finding and as an additional indication of bad faith.

Taken together, these elements established both the subjective intent and the objective seriousness required for punitive damages.

Determining the Compensation Base Through Digital Evidence

One of the most innovative aspects of the decision was the court’s reliance on short-video platform evidence to estimate sales volumes and calculate the compensation base.

Because the defendants did not disclose their financial data, the court did not resort directly to statutory damages. Instead, the plaintiffs submitted electronic evidence preserved using trusted timestamp technology.

The evidence included information from short-video accounts on platforms such as Douyin. One account featured videos advertising the infringing feed products and displayed an order telephone number. Investigations showed that the phone number belonged to a company wholly owned by Mr. Xu, thereby establishing a strong connection between the account and the infringing entities.

From 2019 to 2022, the account had posted numerous promotional videos describing shipments of specific types of feed to various regions and indicating delivery quantities in tons.

The court treated these videos as reliable indicators of the scale of sales. By combining this data with the duration of the infringement and average industry profit margins, the court estimated the defendants’ unlawful profits and used this figure as the compensation base.

After considering the defendants’ obvious bad faith and the seriousness of the conduct, the court applied a punitive multiplier and ultimately awarded the full RMB 20 million requested by the plaintiffs.

This approach illustrates how Chinese courts are increasingly willing to use platform-generated data and other digital evidence to overcome the practical difficulties caused by concealed or incomplete accounting records.

Practical Lessons for Brand Owners

The “DBN” case underscores the growing evidentiary importance of online content.

Short-video platforms are no longer relevant only for marketing and consumer engagement. They can also serve as powerful sources of evidence regarding the scale, duration, and profitability of infringing activities.

The case also highlights the strategic value of investigating relationships between infringers and rights holders. Former employees, distributors, and business partners often possess detailed knowledge of a brand’s reputation and commercial value, making it easier to demonstrate intentional infringement.

Finally, the judgment confirms that defendants who attempt to conceal evidence or continue infringing after receiving warnings face a significantly increased risk of substantial punitive awards.

Conclusion

The “DBN” trademark case reflects an important evolution in Chinese intellectual property litigation. Courts are applying punitive damages more confidently, and are also adopting technologically sophisticated methods to assess damages with greater precision.

For rights holders, this development offers a more predictable and effective enforcement environment. For potential infringers, the message is equally clear. Concealing financial records and relying on digital platforms to promote infringing products does not reduce legal exposure. In many cases, it may provide the very evidence that leads to a higher damages award.

As commercial activity becomes increasingly intertwined with digital platforms, the flexible use of electronic evidence will continue to play a central role in China’s trademark enforcement system.