Video and Infringement: Trademark Protection in the Age of Short-Form Content

08 Sep 2026

By Seven Liu

The rapid growth of short-video platforms has transformed how products are marketed and sold in China.

Consumers increasingly discover products through livestreams, influencer recommendations, and short promotional videos rather than through traditional advertising channels. While these new marketing tools create significant opportunities for businesses, they have also generated new forms of intellectual property disputes that do not fit neatly within traditional legal frameworks.

A recent judgment issued by the Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court provides an important example of how Chinese courts are adapting trademark law to the realities of digital commerce.

The case addressed a practice that has become increasingly common on short-video platforms: using videos featuring a well-known brand's products to attract consumer attention while redirecting viewers to purchase competing products sold by another merchant.

The decision is noteworthy because it confirms that trademark infringement can occur even when the trademark is never physically placed on the defendant's products.

A New Form of Online Free Riding

The dispute arose from the marketing of seasoning products on the popular Chinese short-video platform Douyin (TikTok).

The plaintiff, Hangzhou Jiadianziwei Technology Co., Ltd., is the owner of the registered trademark “Jiadianziwei”, a well-established brand in the compound seasoning industry with substantial market recognition.

In 2025, the plaintiff discovered that four companies based in Zhengzhou had developed an extensive promotional network on Douyin, involving thousands of social media accounts. The accounts, which were linked through common personnel and business addresses, had been using the plaintiff’s promotional content without authorization.

The videos featured the plaintiff’s trademark, product name, and distinctive packaging, creating the impression that the content was promoting the plaintiff’s products.

However, users who followed the shopping links embedded in the videos were instead directed to seasoning products sold by the defendants.

Moreover, the defendants deliberately concealed the brand and packaging information of their own products, leading consumers to mistakenly believe that the goods they were selling were those of the plaintiff.

According to the court's findings, by combining the plaintiff’s established brand identity with links to their own products, while concealing their own branding, the defendants allegedly created a misleading commercial connection between the two businesses. Consumers were therefore led to believe that they were purchasing products originating from, or authorized by, the plaintiff.

This marketing strategy allowed the defendants to benefit from the reputation, recognition, and consumer trust associated with the original brand without obtaining authorization from the trademark owner.

Moving Beyond Traditional Trademark Infringement

Historically, trademark infringement cases often focused on situations where a trademark was directly applied to products, packaging, labels, or advertising materials.

The digital economy has created more complex scenarios.

In this case, the defendants did not place the plaintiff's trademark on their own goods. Instead, they used videos displaying the plaintiff's trademark as a tool to attract traffic and generate sales for competing products.

The court concluded that this conduct still constituted trademark use under Chinese trademark law.

The reasoning reflects an increasingly practical approach to trademark protection. Rather than focusing exclusively on whether a trademark physically appears on a product, courts are examining the commercial function that the trademark performs.

Here, the plaintiff's trademark was being used to attract consumers, influence purchasing decisions, and create an association between the video content and the products ultimately offered for sale.

From the perspective of ordinary consumers, the trademark served its traditional source-identifying function even though the final transaction involved a different product. The court therefore found that the conduct was capable of creating confusion regarding the source of the goods and constituted trademark infringement.

Why Consumer Confusion Remains the Key Issue

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is its emphasis on consumer perception.

Modern online shopping environments encourage rapid decision-making. Consumers often make purchasing decisions based on visual impressions, short descriptions, and quick clicks rather than detailed product comparisons.

In such circumstances, a consumer who watches a promotional video featuring a recognizable brand may reasonably assume that the linked product originates from that brand. If the transition from the video to the purchasing page is seamless and the competing product is not clearly distinguished, the risk of confusion becomes significant.

Chinese courts increasingly evaluate trademark disputes from this practical perspective. The question is not simply whether a trademark appears somewhere in the transaction. Instead, the focus is on whether consumers are likely to be misled about the origin, affiliation, or endorsement of the products being offered.

This approach reflects broader developments in Chinese intellectual property enforcement, where courts are paying increasing attention to the realities of digital consumer behavior.

Addressing Organized Infringement Networks

The case is also significant because the court did not limit its analysis to a single company.

Evidence showed that multiple entities were involved in operating accounts, publishing similar content, and directing consumers to related online stores. The businesses shared various connections, including personnel relationships and operational coordination.

Rather than treating each company separately, the court examined the overall structure of the operation and concluded that the defendants had acted together to carry out the infringing activities.

This aspect of the decision is particularly relevant in the digital marketplace, where businesses sometimes distribute activities across multiple companies, accounts, or platforms. By looking beyond formal corporate structures and examining the practical realities of the operation, courts can more effectively address organized infringement schemes.

The Limits of Punitive Damages

Although the trademark owner sought punitive damages, the court declined to award them.

Under Chinese law, punitive damages are generally reserved for cases involving intentional infringement accompanied by particularly serious circumstances. While the court found that infringement had occurred, it determined that the available evidence did not establish the level of seriousness required for enhanced damages.

Instead, the court awarded compensation based on factors including the reputation of the trademark, the scale and duration of the infringement, the commercial activities involved, and the costs incurred by the trademark owner in enforcing its rights.

The decision illustrates that punitive damages remain an exceptional remedy rather than a routine outcome in Chinese intellectual property litigation.

What This Means for Businesses

The ruling sends an important message to businesses operating on short-video and social-commerce platforms.

Using another company's brand, products, or promotional materials to attract consumer attention can create trademark liability even when the competing products bear different branding. Courts are increasingly willing to examine the entire customer journey, including videos, account pages, shopping links, and purchasing interfaces, rather than focusing solely on product labels.

The decision provides reassurance for brand owners that Chinese courts are prepared to adapt traditional trademark principles to new forms of online commerce.

Businesses investing heavily in digital marketing and content creation may find stronger legal protection against competitors seeking to exploit their reputation through misleading traffic diversion tactics.

For online sellers and marketing agencies, the case serves as a reminder that attracting consumers through references to another company's products carries substantial legal risks when those references create a misleading impression regarding product origin or endorsement.

Looking Ahead

As digital commerce continues to evolve, trademark law must address increasingly sophisticated methods of consumer diversion and online free riding.

The Zhengzhou court's decision reflects a broader trend in China toward functional and technology-neutral trademark protection. Rather than limiting infringement analysis to traditional physical uses of trademarks, courts are examining how trademarks influence consumer behavior across the entire online purchasing process.

In the age of social commerce, a trademark's value lies not only in its appearance on packaging but also in its ability to attract attention, generate trust, and drive purchasing decisions.

Where businesses exploit that value to sell competing products, Chinese courts are increasingly prepared to treat such conduct as trademark infringement.

In the digital marketplace, misleading consumers through branded content can be just as problematic as placing another company's trademark directly on a product.