Beyond the Trademark Class: How China Protects Well-Known Brands Across Different Markets

23 Sep 2026

by Skye Zou

A trademark is normally protected in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. But what happens when another company uses a famous trademark on completely different products?

Two recent cases involving Baidu and Beike illustrate how China’s well-known trademark system can provide protection beyond the original registration category.

In one, the Guangdong High People’s Court protected the well-known “Baidu” trademark against use on electronic products, even though Baidu's registrations primarily covered internet-related services. In the other, the Beijing High People’s Court found that the well-known “Beike” trademark, associated with real estate services, could block the later-applied-for “Xin Beike” trademark for laundry and dry-cleaning services.

The cases involve very different businesses, but they point to the same broader principle: for well-known trademarks, Chinese courts may look beyond formal trademark classifications and examine the commercial relationship that consumers are likely to perceive between the marks.

At the same time, neither case creates unlimited protection across all industries. The courts relied on specific evidence concerning the reputation of the earlier mark, the similarity of the signs, the relevant consumers and the actual commercial environment.

When Different Classes Are Not the End of the Analysis

Ordinarily, trademark protection is closely connected to the goods and services for which a mark is registered. This is one of the reasons trademark owners carefully select the appropriate classes when building their portfolios.

Well-known trademarks can receive broader protection under Article 13 of China's Trademark Law. Where the statutory requirements are satisfied, protection may extend to dissimilar goods or services.

For a registered well-known trademark, this generally requires that the disputed use constitutes a copy, imitation or translation of the mark, is likely to mislead the relevant public and may prejudice the interests of the trademark owner.

The two recent cases demonstrate how this principle can work in practice.

The Baidu dispute concerned the use of “百度”, “百度电子” and “BADU” on chargers, data cables, earphones and other electronic products. Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. owned registrations for “百度” and “baidu” covering internet search and computer information services in Class 42. The defendant, however, was selling physical electronic products.

The formal classification therefore pointed in different directions. But the court considered the broader commercial context and concluded that the defendant's use could lead consumers to associate the electronic products with Baidu.

The Beike case presented an even more striking difference.

Deyou (Tianjin) Real Estate Brokerage Services Co., Ltd. relied on its “贝壳” (Beike) trademark, registered for real estate agency services in Class 36, against the later-applied-for “鑫贝壳” (Xin Beike) mark, filed for laundry, dry-cleaning and related services in Class 37.

A real estate agency and a dry cleaner are clearly different businesses. They are also not classified as identical or similar services under China's classification system.

Yet the Beijing High People's Court found that the difference in classification did not end the inquiry.

The Baidu Case: Technology Products Can Still Be Connected to an Internet Brand

The Baidu case illustrates the importance of the relationship between the allegedly infringing goods and the commercial environment of the well-known mark.

The defendant used “百度” directly and adopted “BADU”, which differed from “baidu” by only one letter. More importantly, the products were electronic goods operating within a broader technological environment that was connected to Baidu's business.

There was also some overlap between the relevant consumer groups.

Against this background, the court considered that consumers could perceive a commercial connection between the defendant's products and Baidu, such as licensing, cooperation or an affiliated business. The use was therefore found to infringe Baidu's well-known trademark despite the difference between the registered services and the defendant's products.

The case also involved unfair competition arising from the defendant's use of “百度” as part of its company name.

The financial consequences were substantial. E-commerce evidence showed online sales exceeding RMB 68.91 million. The courts considered the conduct intentional, long-lasting and commercially significant and ultimately upheld an award of RMB 5 million (around 750,000 USD), together with reasonable enforcement expenses.

The Beike Case: Sometimes the Physical Environment Matters

The Beike case provides a different perspective.

The dispute arose from the application for trademark No. 66969201, “鑫贝壳” (Xin Beike), by Huanghua Beike Zhi Xuan Life Services Co., Ltd. for laundry and dry-cleaning services.

Deyou challenged the mark based on its earlier “贝壳” (Beike) trademark for real estate agency services. The China National Intellectual Property Administration initially rejected the invalidation request, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld that decision at first instance.

The case changed direction on appeal after Deyou submitted additional evidence concerning the market recognition of “贝壳”.

The evidence included extensive online and offline use, a large physical service network, substantial transaction volumes, advertising expenditure and nationwide promotion.

The Beijing High People's Court ultimately found that the “贝壳” mark had achieved a high level of recognition in connection with real estate agency services before the filing of “鑫贝壳” and qualified as a well-know trademark for that porpose.

Then the court examined the relationship between real estate agency and laundry services.

Rather than relying solely on the classification system, it considered where consumers encounter these services in everyday life.

Real estate agencies and dry-cleaning businesses may operate in the same residential neighborhoods and community areas. Their consumer groups can therefore overlap, even though the services themselves are unrelated from a formal classification perspective.

This real-world connection became particularly significant because “鑫贝壳” incorporated the entire “贝壳” mark.

Consumer Association Can Matter Even Without Direct Confusion

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Beike judgment is that the court did not limit its analysis to whether consumers would believe that the two services came from the same company.

A consumer seeing “鑫贝壳” at a neighborhood laundry might not actually believe that the laundry service was operated by the Beike real estate platform. The court nevertheless considered whether consumers might establish a connection between the two marks and whether that association could weaken the distinctive character of the well-known “贝壳” trademark.

This is an important distinction for international brand owners.

In a conventional infringement analysis, the central concern is often whether consumers might confuse the source of two goods or services. In the context of well-known trademark protection, however, the analysis can also involve the broader association created by a later mark, including potential dilution of distinctiveness, damage to reputation or unfair exploitation of the earlier mark's reputation.

The Common Thread: Commercial Context

Although Baidu and Beike concern very different industries, their reasoning reveals a common feature.

The courts did not treat the trademark classification system as an isolated test.

In the Baidu case, the court considered the relationship between electronic products and Baidu's technology and internet environment, together with the similarity of the signs and the potential for consumers to perceive a commercial relationship.

In the Beike case, the court looked at the everyday environments in which real estate and laundry services are encountered, the overlap between consumer groups and the fact that “鑫贝壳” completely incorporated the earlier “贝壳” mark.

The cases therefore suggest a broader question for assessing cross-class risk: Not only “Are these goods or services in the same class?”, but also “Could consumers reasonably connect these businesses because of the way the marks and services exist in the real market?”

Fame Must Still Be Proven

A famous trademark does not automatically receive unlimited protection.

The Beike judgment makes this particularly clear. Well-known status is determined on a case-by-case and needs-based basis. The Beijing High People's Court considered it sufficient to recognise one of Deyou's “贝壳” registrations as well known for real estate agency services because that was enough to resolve the dispute. It did not need to determine whether Deyou's other cited marks also qualified.

The evidence required to establish fame can also be extensive.

In Beike, the court considered the duration and scale of use, advertising investment, geographic reach, online activity, physical service locations, transaction volumes, awards and previous judicial recognition. The case demonstrates that a registration certificate alone is unlikely to establish the level of market recognition required for well-known trademark protection.

For international companies, this makes evidence management an important part of trademark strategy. Sales figures, advertising records, market coverage, media exposure, platform data and other evidence of consumer recognition should be preserved over time, rather than collected only after a dispute has arisen.

Different Classes Are Not a Safe Harbour

Taken together, the two cases provide a useful warning for businesses considering a third party's trademark.

Choosing a different Nice Classification does not automatically eliminate risk where the earlier mark has achieved well-known status and the legal requirements for cross-class protection are satisfied.

A technology brand may face unauthorised use of its mark on consumer electronics. A service brand may encounter a later mark in an entirely different everyday service. In both situations, the key issue may be whether the later use creates a sufficiently strong association with the earlier brand and produces one of the forms of harm recognised under Chinese trademark law.

But the reverse is also important.

Well-known status is not a blanket monopoly over every possible commercial use of a name. The assessment remains fact-specific. The reputation of the earlier mark, similarity between the signs, the relevant goods or services, the consumer groups, the commercial environment and the potential impact on the earlier mark all matter.

What International Brand Owners Should Take From These Cases

For international businesses operating in China, these cases suggest that trademark protection should be viewed as more than a registration exercise.

First, trademark portfolios should be designed with future expansion in mind. A company entering China should consider not only the classes corresponding to its current business, but also commercially relevant areas into which the brand could expand.

Second, monitoring should extend beyond identical or similar goods and services. Third-party applications in apparently unrelated sectors may still create a potential risk if the brand has acquired substantial recognition and the commercial context could lead consumers to establish an association.

Third, companies should build evidence of reputation continuously. If a brand later needs to rely on well-known trademark protection, contemporaneous evidence of market recognition can be critical.

Finally, businesses should assess potential infringement from the consumer's perspective. The question is not always simply whether two businesses sell the same thing. Where consumers encounter the two brands, whether their consumer groups overlap and whether the later mark incorporates a highly recognisable element of the earlier brand may all influence the legal analysis.

A Broader View of Trademark Protection in China

The Baidu and Beike cases show two different ways in which China's well-known trademark framework can operate beyond conventional classification boundaries.

Baidu demonstrates how a famous internet and technology brand can receive protection against use on physical electronic products where the markets, consumers and commercial context create a potential connection.

Beike demonstrates that even a real estate brand and a laundry business can come within the same legal analysis when their service environments and consumer groups overlap and the later mark incorporates the earlier well-known mark.

Neither decision means that well-known trademarks are protected everywhere. Instead, both cases illustrate a context-driven approach, where the formal classification of goods and services is only one part of the assessment.

When evaluating trademark risk in China, international brand owners must look beyond classification. They should examine the brand, the market, the consumers, and the commercial connection that the disputed use may create.