The statutory or regulatory provisions prohibiting trademark infringement are: Article 50 and 51 of the Trademark Law.

Article 50: Any of the following acts shall constitute an infringement on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark referred to in Article 52 (5) of the Trademark Law:

(1) using any signs which are identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark as the name of the goods or decoration of the goods on the same or similar goods, thus misleading the public;
(2) intentionally providing facilities such as storage, transport, mailing, concealing, etc. for the purpose of infringing another person’s exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

Article 51 Where the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is infringed upon, each and every person may lodge a complaint with or report the case to the authority of administration for industry and commerce.

In a trademark infringement case, the following party or parties have standing to sue: owner; exclusive licensee; sole licensee, if suing with the owner as a co-plaintiff or on its own if the owner does not sue. For an exclusive licensee to have standing, the license must be recorded, and for a sole licensee to have standing, the license must be recorded.

The following party or parties may be sued for trademark infringement: a direct infringer;

a party who induces another party to infringe; a party who in concert with another party infringes; a party who intentionally provides conveniences such as storage, transport, or concealment facilities to the direct infringer.

The remedies available to a successful plaintiff in a trademark infringement case are: injunctive relief in the form of a prohibitory injunction, with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: restraining the dealings of the infringing goods; Injunctive relief in the form of a temporary (or interlocutory) injunction pending trial with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: Injunctive relief is granted only if the plaintiff can prove irreparable loss; Monetary relief compensating for plaintiff's lost profits with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: only if this can be quantified; Monetary relief to compensate for past or future corrective action taken by plaintiff with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: Reasonable costs incurred in connection with the action may be recoverable as damages; Monetary relief compensating for damage to goodwill, reputation or the value of the trade dress rights with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: only if this can be quantified, which is difficult, if not impossible; Monetary relief in the form of a royalty with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: only as a way to quantify damages; Monetary relief in the form of statutory damages with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: the maximum amount is RMB 500,000 (around USD 73,200) if it is not possible to quantify plaintiff's lost profits or defendant's illegal gain; Monetary relief disgorging the defendant's profits with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: only as a way to quantify damages; Recovery of legal fees, expert fees or other costs incurred to bring an action with special requirements, or limitations, as follows: only if they are reasonable, and as damages; Other: elimination of the impact of the infringement, by means such as a notice in newspapers.

An invalidity attack based on non-distinctiveness is a defense to trademark infringement in a case. Such an attack is not filed with the court but with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB).Requirements for, or limitations to, an invalidity attack based on non-distinctiveness are that it is a separate procedure under the TRAB.

The burden of proof for an invalidity attack based on non-distinctiveness is on the defendant.

An invalidity attack based on utilitarian functionality is a defense to trademark infringement only if it is purely functional. Such an attack is filed with the TRAB and is not filed with the court. Requirements for, or limitations to, an invalidity attack based on utilitarian functionality are that it is a separate procedure under the TRAB. The burden of proof for an invalidity attack based on utilitarian functionality is on the defendant. An invalidity attack based on ornamental/aesthetic functionality is not a defense to trademark infringement.

And an invalidity attack based on functionality (no distinction between utilitarian and ornamental/aesthetic functionality) is a defense to trademark infringement in a case involving trade dress only if purely functional. Such an attack is filed with the TRAB and not with the court.

Requirements for, or limitations to, an invalidity attack based on functionality (no distinction between utilitarian and ornamental/aesthetic functionality) are: It is a separate procedure under the TRAB.

The burden of proof for an invalidity attack based on functionality (no distinction between utilitarian and ornamental/aesthetic functionality) is on the defendant. A competitive use defense based on fair use or fair dealing is not a defense to trademark infringement .A permitted competitive use defense based on functional feature or element embodied is not a defense to trademark infringement.

Trademark infringement activities that take place outside the country cannot give rise to domestic liability.