LEGO vs. LEPIN: How Punitive Damages work in a Trademark Infringement Case

Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at Beijing MINGDUN Law Firm


Date: May 5, 2021




In China, compensatory damages are also called “actual damages”, which compensate a plaintiff for the losses suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. In addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages may be awarded by judges in some exceptional cases. Punitive damages are known as having a 'quasi-criminal' nature and serving the function of punishing the defendant in a civil lawsuit. In fact, the purposes of punitive damages are two-fold: to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the society from committing similar misbehavior in the future.


In a trademark infringement civil lawsuit, the basic principle is to monetarily compensate the plaintiff’s losses due to the defendant’s trademark infringement activities. Damages awarded in a typical trademark infringement lawsuit are meant to make the plaintiff “whole” again from a financial standpoint. That being said, punitive damages are possible in cases where the defendants are found to be willful, malicious and highly reprehensible and the circumstances of the case are severe.


The Guangdong High Court struck a heavy blow to a copycat of LEGO in the LEGO vs. LEPIN judgement[1] with an award of CNY30 million (USD4.56 million) as punitive damages to compensate the aggrieved plaintiff and to punish the defendants whose infringement acts were considered willful, malicious and especially reprehensible with severe circumstances.


As one of the landmark rulings in the landscape of awarding punitive damages under the trademark law regime, the LEGO vs. LEPIN judgement is sending a strong and positive message to brand owners who have been bitterly battling with copycats — “We've Got Your Back”.


Basic Facts


Since 2015, under the brand name “LEPIN”, Guangdong Meizhi and three affiliates had been actively engaged in copying LEGO building sets and multiple LEGO minifigures, passing off the LEGO brand, and carrying out unfair competition practices by imitating, manufacturing and selling building brick toys nearly identical with those of LEGO. In addition, the external design, packaging and manuals of LEPIN’s products were also direct imitations of those designed and used by LEGO. Furthermore, the defendants rushed to file a series of trademarks for LEPIN in relation to toys in China.

According to the figures released by a Shanghai court in a related criminal judgement,[2] during the period from September 2017 to April 2019, through the channels of online and brick-and-mortar stores selling, the defendants sold out nearly 4.25 million boxes of LEGO counterfeit toys involving 634 different LEGO models, generating a revenue of more than CNY330 million.

LEGO filed a series of civil and criminal lawsuits against Guangdong Meizhi and its affiliates in different Chinese cities to seek injunction against the defendants’ use of LEGO’s intellectual property as well as their activities of unfair competition, and to claim damages and legal expenses.

In the trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit filed in Guangdong Province, the court of the first instance, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, found that Guangdong Meizhi and its affiliates had cloned LEGO toys since 2015 and produced numerous copycat versions under the LEPIN trademark and some other fraudulent trademarks, which are confusingly similar with those of LEGO’s. Their acts constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled that Guangdong Meizhi and the other three defendants should pay the maximum amount of statutory damages, i.e., CNY3 million (USD456,000).[3] Dissatisfied with the amount of damages awarded by the first instance court, both parties — the plaintiff and the defendants — appealed to the court of the second instance, the Guangdong High Court.

On February 26, 2021, the Guangdong High Court handed down the final judgment in this case. The Guangdong High Court multiplied by 10 times the initial damages awarded to LEGO. Guangdong Meizhi and three other defendants who are behind the clone brand LEPIN infringing upon trademark rights held by LEGO must now pay CNY30 million (USD4.56 million) as punitive damages, a large sum of damages award rarely rendered in previous trademark infringement cases.

Why Punitive Damages work in LEGO vs. LEPIN


To explain the awarding of the aforesaid punitive damages, the Guangdong High Court highlights the following elements of “culpability” on the part of the defendants:

1.    'LEPIN' infringement lasted for a long time, in large scale, and with high profitability.

2.    'LEPIN' infringed upon a series of the plaintiff’s commercial designations and logos. With an infringing network rich in design and organization, the defendants’ acts demonstrated an obvious malice of imitating and free riding 'LEGO', which should be categorized as a serious infringement, and should be given a heavy punishment.

3.    According to the sales data of 'LEPIN' provided by Zhejiang Taobao Network Company, it can be reasonably presumed that the sales amount of the infringing products exceeds CNY500 million. Based on the reasonable estimation of the profit rate of related industries, the overall profit of the infringing products involved should be far more than CNY160 million.

4.    The strength of judicial relief should match the reputation of the plaintiff’s involved intellectual property. After long-term use and publicity, the 'LEGO' trademark has a high popularity in the toy market and has already become the main logo used by the relevant public to identify LEGO products. Guangdong Meizhi and its affiliates had used 'LEPIN' logo for multiple times, which is very similar to 'LEGO' in terms of color combination, form of expression, overall visual effect, etc., and can easily lead to confusion among the public, thus weakening the distinctness of 'LEGO' trademark and damaging its market reputation.

5.    During the process of litigating the case before the courts, the evidence production of the two parties showed that the plaintiff was trying their best to prove the sales records of the defendants and the profits gained by them while the defendants were attempting to evade liabilities who shall then bear the unfavorable consequences of their dishonest acts during the litigation.

Therefore, LEGO's claim for compensation in the amount of CNY30 million (USD4.56 million) has been fully upheld the Guangdong High Court as the Court finds that the defendants are willful, malicious and highly reprehensible and the circumstances of the case at bar are severe.

How Punitive Damages Came into Play under the Chinese IP Laws


In China, intellectual property litigations especially trademark infringement litigations almost always end up with low damages awards which have long been a shared concern for intellectual property right holders. Therefore, to establish a system where awarding punitive damages would become possible has been one of the central themes of China's major intellectual property law reforms over the past decade.


In 2013, the China Trademark Law was amended and made the first attempt to establish a system of punitive damages for malicious infringement by providing under Article 63: “[I]f the infringement is committed in bad faith with serious circumstances, the damages shall be determined in accordance with the aforesaid method[4] based on one to three times of the determined amount.”


In 2019, Article 63 of China Trademark Law was amended for the damages to be ranged from “one to three times” to “one to five times”. In addition, the punitive damages system was added to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law which was amended in the same year. Furthermore, a policy-type Regulations on Improving the Operation of Business promulgated and implemented in 2019 established a punitive compensation system for infringement upon intellectual property rights.


In 2020, the China Patent Law and the China Copyright Law, which were amended in the same year also explicitly formulated a system of punitive damages.


In January 2021, the Civil Code of China, which came into effect on the very first day of 2021, provides that “[I]n case of intentional infringement of another party's intellectual property rights and under serious circumstances, the infringed party shall have the right to request the corresponding punitive damages.”


In March 2021, the Supreme Court of China issued the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights and timely published six typical cases of punitive damages applied in civil cases involving infringement of intellectual property rights.


Practical Tips on Presenting Punitive Damages Cases at Trial


As demonstrated in the above, with respect to trademark infringement litigation, punitive damages are only possible in exceptional cases, where the “malicious intention” of the infringer and the “serious circumstances” of the infringement could be well established. Here are some practical tips on presenting punitive damages cases at trials concerning trademark infringement:


·         Gather information from websites, social media and online or offline sales platforms to show method and frequency of the infringement, the duration of the infringement, the geographical scope, scale and consequences of the infringement, the unit price of the infringing products, the annual sales records of the infringer, and the average profit rates in the same or related industries.  

·         Raise evidence to show the reputation of the plaintiff’s involved trademarks or products, the duration of the use, the geographical scope, scale and popularity of any advertising activities, records of being protected by any previous administrative or judicial actions and comparable licensing fees of the involved trademarks.

·         Show to the judge that the defendant still commits infringement upon intellectual property rights after being notified or warned by the plaintiff or party of interest. 

·         Consider having communications with the defendant notarized and bringing notaries to meetings with the defendant.  

·         Review the defendant’s trademark filings for evidence that it has applied for illegitimate trademarks, a fact that increases the possibility that a court will find bad faith.  

·         Check the defendant’s litigation history to see if it has a prior record of being sued by other legitimate brand owners.  

·         Review corporate records to see if the defendant was a previous trading partner of the plaintiff’s business.  

·         Consider bringing the following facts to the judge: the defendant forges, destroys or conceals any evidence of infringement; the defendant obtains huge benefits from the infringement or causes huge loss to the plaintiff’s business due to the infringement.

·         Seek a court order asking the defendant to provide its sales records, account books and original receipts relating to the infringement, and if the defendant refuses to provide them without any justified reason or provides any false account book or other documents, the court may determine the base number for calculating the amount of punitive damages by referring to the plaintiff’s claim and evidence.  

·         Notarized evidence of bad faith has a unique and important probative value before the court.

·         With preliminary evidence of infringement, a preservation action seeking to preserve evidence of infringement including sales records, account books and original receipts can be an effective weapon. 




In China, the call for awarding punitive damages has been intensified due to the increase in malicious infringement, the importance for adequately compensating the plaintiff and the need for deterrence.


The LEGO vs. LEPIN judgement of the Guangdong High Court is a crucial milestone in the long struggle by brand owners and advocates to remedy the bitter fact of “high enforcement costs of the IPR owners and low infringement costs of the infringers”. This decision and the continued amendments to the China Trademark Law and other major IP laws strengthen the position of legitimate IPR owners against malicious copycats and counterfeiters. 


[1] Lego Group vs Guangdong Meizhi, etc., Guangdong High Court: (2020) Yue Min Zhong No. 1642.

[2] The Third Branch of Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China vs Li Haipeng, etc., Shanghai High Court: (2020) Hu Ling Zhong No. 105. Under this criminal judgment, nine principals of LEPIN were heavily fined and sentenced to jail due to their criminal acts of copyright violation upon various LEGO toys.

[3] Lego Group vs Guangdong Meizhi, etc., Guangzhou IP Court: (2016) Yue 73 Min Chu No. 1692.

[4] “The aforesaid method” means: “[T]he amount of damages for infringement upon the right to exclusively use a registered trademark shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the right holder from the infringement; where it is difficult to determine the amount of actual losses, the amount of damages may be determined according to the benefits acquired by the infringer from the infringement; where it is difficult to determine the right holder's losses or the benefits acquired by the infringer, the amount of damages may be a reasonable multiple of the royalties”, as provided under Article 63 of the China Trademark Law.

  • 相关资讯 More
  • 点击次数: 4
    2023 - 02 - 03
    作者:刘文娟国家知识产权局于近日发布了《商标法修订草案(征求意见稿)》(以下简称“修订草案”),公开征求对商标法的修改意见。在上述修订草案中,我们可以欣喜地发现,立法机关已经开始在立法层面纠正目前商标注册“注而不用”、授权程序冗长繁复、恶意注册非法成本低的弊端。笔者仅就修订草案中涉及商标使用及打击恶意注册的部分进行分析,供大家参考。 第一, 修订草案增加了注册商标权利人主动提交商标使用说明的义务; 此条款借鉴了美国等国家关于商标注册人主动提交商标使用证据的相关规定,是对商标权利人最重要的修改条款。修订草案第六十一条规定,商标注册人应当自商标核准注册之日起每满五年之后的十二个月内,向国务院知识产权行政部门说明该商标在核定商品上的使用情况或者不使用的正当理由。 为了不过度增加权利人的举证义务且要达到督促注册商标使用、清理闲置商标的目的,对商标权利人主动提交商标使用说明的举证标准显然不能等同于撤销注册商标连续三年不使用申请中权利人的举证标准。然而为了不架空本条款,尚有待建立权利人承诺制度及诚信等级,督促商标权的实际使用。 第二,修订草案规定申请人不得重复申请、注册商标; 修订草案第十四条及第二十一条规定,申请注册的商标不得与申请人在同一种商品上在先申请、已经注册或者在申请日前一年内被公告注销、撤销、宣告无效的在先商标相同。 理想情况下,此条款本应是区分性知识产权的应有之意,商标权的可续展性决定了一件商标授权足以满足权利的正常使用。此条规定若能正确执行,将大量有效减少商标恶意注册行为。为规避商标法对商标使用的要求,不少恶意注册人采取“接力式注册商标”,不断重新申请已被撤销或无效宣告的商标,极大增加了权利人的维权成本。 然而,在实践中,因为权利人无法及时清理在先商标的阻碍,不得已需要“接力式申请”,以避免...
  • 点击次数: 6
    2023 - 01 - 13
  • 点击次数: 11
    2022 - 12 - 30
  • 点击次数: 7
    2022 - 12 - 23
    作者:金涟伊2021年10月28日发布的《“十四五”国家知识产权保护和运用规划》中指出,要“推动企业实施商标品牌战略,加强商标品牌资产管理,强化商标使用导向,支持开展海外商标布局,培育具有市场竞争力、国际影响力的知名商标品牌”。加强建设高质量的商标品牌,企业可以从做好商标管理做起,注册商标和未注册商标的管理重点略有区别。 一、注册商标的管理 注册商标是由企业向国家知识产权局提交申请,经国家知识产权局审核通过并公告注册的商标。商标注册后可获得商标注册证,列明该商标的注册号、商标标识、核定使用商品或服务类别及项目、注册人、注册人地址、注册日期及有效期等信息。商标注册证记载该商标的关键信息,是商标注册人拥有商标专用权的重要凭证,企业应当注意留存。并且商标专用权届满前,企业应根据需要及时续展。 实践中,为向公众宣告商标已获准注册,企业可在使用注册商标时在该商标右上角标注注册商标标志“®”,同时应在使用中注意以下几点: 1、 应注意保存使用证据 根据商标法第四十九条的规定,注册商标没有正当理由连续三年不使用的,任何单位或者个人可以向商标局申请撤销该注册商标。合法合规地使用注册商标并妥善留存商标使用证据是企业商标管理的重点内容。 商标使用证据的主要形式可分为书面材料及实物材料。书面材料包括交易文书、产品检验报告、加工销售合同发票、宣传海报、媒体广告材料、荣誉资质证书等;实物材料包括承载商标的产品容器、标签、说明手册、包装盒、服务场所装潢等。如需提交复印件或照片的,应委托公证机关办理公证。 2、 应注意维护商标专用权 商标获准注册后,商标注册人便在核定使用的商品服务上享有商标专用权,可对侵犯其商标专用权的情况主动进行商标行政、司法保护,以维护合法权益。积极维护商标权有助于企业建立...
× 扫一扫,关注微信公众号
Copyright© 2008 - 2020北京市铭盾律师事务所京ICP备09063742号-1犀牛云提供企业云服务