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: 1000004
    2023 - 09 - 15
    作者:赵丹青在商标实务中,对于将与他人在先登记、使用并具有一定知名度的字号相同或者基本相同的文字申请注册为商标,容易导致相关公众混淆的,可以依据《商标法》第三十二条主张系争商标对他人在先字号权的损害,要求将系争商标不予核准注册或者予以无效宣告。 若是反过来,将他人在先注册商标作为企业名称中的字号使用,应当如何进行维权呢?下面,我们通过案例进行说明。 案例一 案情简介 台联良子公司于2004年注册“良子”商标,核定使用在第44类服务上,即蒸汽浴室;按摩;公共卫生浴室;美容院;修指甲;高级理发店。台联良子公司及关联公司于2005年、2006年均被授予全国“百佳诚信单位”“2005年中国十大行业隐形冠军”。2015年,良子获得创新医疗大赛180+项目,2016年获得中美健康峰会100+项目。《北京晚报》等多家媒体报道了台联良子公司的发展历程。 2020年,足间道良子公司成立,曾用名北京阿丽良子健康管理有限公司,于2020年4月变更为现名称。经营范围包括健康咨询服务、体育健康服务、生活美容服务、足浴服务等。足间道良子公司在其店铺招牌、靠垫、毛巾、前台等处均突出使用“足间道良子”标识。台联良子公司发现上述行为后,向法院提起诉讼。 案例分析 《商标法》第五十七条规定,未经商标注册人的许可,在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标近似的商标,或者在类似商品上使用与其注册商标相同或者近似的商标,容易导致混淆的,属于侵犯注册商标专用权的行为。 本案中,台联良子公司涉案商标核准注册服务包括第44类的按摩、洗浴、美容理发,结合足间道良子公司经营范围、店招、店内装潢及宣传材料,足间道良子公司提供的是与涉案商标核定服务项目类似的按摩及足浴服务,两者服务类别相同。足间道良子公司未经台联良子公司许可,在经营场所的店招突出使用了与上述注...
  • 点击次数: 1000006
    2023 - 09 - 08
    作者:刘文娟近日,国家市场监督管理总局颁布了《企业名称登记管理规定实施办法》(“以下简称“新《办法》”),于2023年10月1日起施行。同时,原《企业名称登记管理实施办法》及《个体工商户名称登记管理办法》同时废止。 除进一步规范企业名称登记规则外,新《办法》最大的亮点就是大幅度提高了对在先权益的保护以及优化了企业名称争议解决机制。笔者具体总结如下: 第一, 扩大了企业名称登记审核范围,有利于快速、高效解决争议; 新《办法》之前,各县级以上企业名称登记机关在对拟登记企业名称进行审核时,一般仅针对本辖区内登记的在先企业名称进行审查。在其他辖区内的企业名称一般不在其审查范围内,这就导致了不同辖区企业字号的冲突问题。 新《办法》的实施扩大了行政机关的审查范围,可以更有效地解决不同辖区企业名称的冲突。同时,新《办法》明确规定各地方企业名称登记机关可以受理处理企业名称争议纠纷,权利人可选择通过行政程序解决企业名称争议问题。对于经判定侵权的企业名称需要变更名称的,不需要权利人另行申请,可以得到更高效地执行。 第二, 协调了企业名称与其他类型知识产权保护的对接 新《办法》之前,对于企业名称侵犯他人在先权益的,一般通过《反不正当竞争法》在法院提起民事诉讼予以解决。然而《反不正当竞争法》相关规定一般要求涉嫌侵权的企业名称已实际从事了商业活动。对于仅登记但未投入使用的企业名称,权利人往往束手无策。 新《办法》是直接针对企业名称的规定,不要求涉嫌侵权的企业名称已投入使用并造成实际的混淆后果。权利人认为他人企业名称侵犯了其企业名称合法权益的,可提起诉讼或请求有管辖权的行政机关处理。 新《办法》弥补了之前企业名称争议解决上的不足,很好地将企业登记管理与《反不正当竞争法》的规定相结合,有利于各部门法之前的...
  • 点击次数: 23
    2023 - 08 - 25
    作者:曲淼引言:随着我国市场经济体制的逐渐完善,经济发展呈现出多元化态势,我国企业所处的内外环境都发生了较大的变化。为应对市场需求,不少企业选择了采用劳务派遣这一灵活的用工方式。但2012年《劳动合同法》的修订及2013年《劳务派遣暂行规定》的颁布,使劳务派遣用工的限制变得更为严格。因此在实践中,劳务外包成为了劳务派遣改头换面的屏障,众多企业纷纷选择转向劳务外包,以减轻单位用工责任、节省单位用工成本,这就导致了“假外包、真派遣”的现象时常发生。本文笔者通过对比分析劳务外包与劳务派遣的不同之处,来讨论实践中“假外包、真派遣”存在的各种法律风险及规避措施。 一、 对劳务外包的基本理解 1. 劳务外包的概念与特征目前,劳务外包在法律、行政法规层面无明确定义。根据各地条例、各级法院判决等可将劳务外包理解为:“劳务外包是指企业将其部分业务或职能工作发包给相关机构,由该机构自行安排人员按照发包企业的要求完成相应的业务或工作”。劳务外包具有以下特点:发包单位与承包单位的关系参照适用《合同法》承揽合同一章的相关规定;合同标的为发包单位的部分业务或职能工作;由承包单位自行完成该项业务。 2. 劳务外包与劳务派遣的区别 (1)标的不同・劳务外包的标的为“工作成果”:承包人以自己的设备、技术和劳动力完成来自发包方的业务委托,向发包人交付工作成果,并提交必要的技术资料和有关质量证明。・劳务派遣的标的为“劳动者”,用工单位购买的是劳动力。 (2)内在关系不同・劳务外包中,发包方和承包方之间是业务委托关系,发包方与劳动者不存在直接法律关系,承包方独立指挥命令劳动者完成业务委托,并对劳动者进行必要的技术指导。・劳务派遣中,用工单位向被派遣劳动者直接行使指挥命令权。 (3)主体要求不同・劳务外包要求承包方具备相应的经...
  • 点击次数: 15
    2023 - 08 - 18
    作者:刘艳玲《民法典》合同编中的技术合同包括技术开发合同、技术转让合同和技术许可合同、技术咨询合同和技术服务合同。根据技术的成熟度、交易双方的实力和市场交易环境的不同,技术商业化实现会使用到不同的合同。根据科学技术部发布的2022年全国技术合同登记情况表,全国登记的技术合同共有772507项,技术合同成交额为44791.02亿元。其中,北京、广东、上海、江苏、山东的技术合同成交额在全国各省市中位于前五名。北京、江苏、陕西、广东和山东的技术合同项数在全国各省市中位于前五名。根据科学技术部发布的2022年全国技术流向情况表,前面列举的这些省和直辖市中,输出技术的合同成交额大于吸纳技术的合同成交额的有北京、上海和陕西;吸纳技术的合同成交额大于输出技术的合同成交额的有江苏、广东和山东。其中,广东省广州市输出技术的合同成交额大于吸纳技术的合同成交额。技术成交额是包括技术交易额、委托方或受让方购置设备、仪器、零部件、原材料等非技术性费用在内的总金额。根据合同登记管理的相关规定,技术合同认定登记统一由卖方(进口合同由买方)按自愿原则在所属地域内选择登记机构进行一次性登记。为完成技术合同登记,需符合合同登记管理要求,且申请认定登记的技术合同应使用规范名称、完整准确地表达合同内容。为此,科学技术部印发有技术合同示范文本供交易双方参考。国家知识产权局也发布有专利实施许可合同范本和专利开放许可合同范本供交易双方参考。但实际交易中,根据交易背景和交易双方的情况最后签署的技术合同会各有不同。现介绍美国证劵交易委员会(SEC)公布的一份技术转移和技术许可协议[1]给读者提供信息参考之用,这是一份InterDigital Communication, LLC和Beceem Communications Inc.之间于2010年签署的技术转移和许可协议。  首先是合同背景和目的。合同背景和目的能...
× 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