China’s top court addresses unfair competition in Lukfook trade-name dispute

Supreme People’s Court finds that formal registration and use of an enterprise name does not prevent an unfair competition finding where a similar identifier is likely to cause consumer confusion.

China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has ruled that registering and formally using an enterprise name does not, in itself, prevent a finding of unfair competition where the name incorporates a commercial identifier similar to an earlier registered trademark and remains likely to cause confusion.

The decision concerns the “六福” (Lukfook) and “六福珠宝” trademarks and the use of the similar identifier “金六福尚美” as an enterprise name identifier in the jewelry sector.

The SPC’s ruling provides an important clarification of the relationship between trademark infringement, enterprise-name registration, and unfair competition under Chinese law. The court selected the dispute as one of nine 2026 typical unfair competition cases released on September 10. The rehearing judgment is identified as (2026) Supreme People’s Court Civil Rehearing No. 51.

Dispute over “Lukfook” and “Jin Liufu Shangmei”

According to the SPC, a marketing company was the licensed user of the registered “六福” and “六福珠宝” trademarks covering, among other goods, jewelry. It had been authorized to bring proceedings concerning infringement of the trademark rights. A jewelry company had acquired the “金六福尚美” trademark from a third party. The mark was subsequently declared invalid.

The marketing company alleged that the jewelry company had licensed the “金六福尚美” identifier to a trading company for use on jewelry products. It also alleged that the jewelry company had registered and used “金六福尚美” as the identifier, or “字号,” within its enterprise name.

The first-instance court found the jewelry company liable for both trademark infringement and unfair competition and ordered it to pay RMB 100,000, among other relief. The second-instance court upheld the trademark-infringement finding but concluded that the jewelry company’s registration and use of the enterprise name did not constitute unfair competition.

The marketing company then sought a retrial before the SPC. The SPC accepted the case, overturned the second-instance decision on the unfair competition issue, and restored the first-instance judgment.

SPC finds unfair competition

The SPC found that the “六福” trademark had acquired a relatively high level of market recognition through continued promotion and use by its registrant and the marketing company. The court considered the jewelry company to be an operator in the same industry and therefore held that it should have been aware of the earlier registered and well-recognized “六福” trademark when it registered its enterprise name.

Despite this, the company registered and used the similar identifier “金六福尚美,” which completely incorporated the “六福” element, as the identifier within its enterprise name.

The SPC found that the circumstances demonstrated a clear intention to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the “六福” trademark. It also found that the conduct was objectively likely to cause relevant members of the public to believe that the goods originated from the group associated with the earlier mark or that a particular connection existed between the businesses. The SPC therefore concluded that the enterprise-name conduct constituted unfair competition.

Formal use of an enterprise name is not a defense

One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the SPC’s treatment of the defendant’s formal use of its registered enterprise name.

The second-instance court had concluded that the jewelry company was using its full enterprise name in a proper manner and therefore did not commit unfair competition through that use.

The SPC rejected that reasoning. The court pointed out that the second-instance court had already found “金六福尚美” and “六福” to be similar and had relied on that similarity in finding trademark infringement.

Against that background, the fact that the defendant used “金六福尚美” as part of its formally registered enterprise name was not sufficient, by itself, to avoid an unfair competition finding.

The SPC held that where a commercial identifier similar to another party’s registered trademark is registered as an enterprise-name identifier, even formal use of the enterprise name can constitute unfair competition if that use remains insufficient to prevent confusion.

Bad faith and market recognition

The court’s reasoning also placed weight on the defendant’s knowledge of the earlier mark and the existing market recognition of “六福.”

The SPC found that the earlier mark had achieved a relatively high level of market recognition through sustained promotion and use. Because the defendant operated in the same industry, the court considered that it should have known about the earlier mark. The subsequent decision to register an identifier incorporating the complete “六福” element was therefore relevant to the court’s conclusion that the defendant intended to take advantage of the earlier mark’s goodwill.

The assessment was consequently not based solely on a comparison between the two identifiers. The SPC considered the prior trademark, market recognition, the parties’ industry relationship, the defendant’s knowledge, the similarity of the identifiers, and the likelihood of consumer confusion.

Trademark and enterprise-name protection

The decision is significant because it demonstrates how China’s trademark and unfair competition regimes can operate alongside protection for enterprise names.

A trademark and an enterprise name perform different functions. However, the SPC’s decision makes clear that registration of an enterprise name does not automatically protect an operator from an unfair competition claim where the identifier used within that name creates a likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark.

The court characterized the case as a typical example of using a formally registered enterprise name to carry out conduct causing confusion. Its stated principle is that registering a commercial identifier similar to another party’s registered trademark as an enterprise-name identifier can constitute unfair competition where formal use of the enterprise name remains insufficient to avoid confusion.

A case involving a well-known mark, but a narrower principle

The case may be relevant to brand owners dealing with potentially confusing enterprise-name registrations in China, particularly where a later registrant operates in the same sector as the earlier trademark owner.

However, the decision should not be read as establishing that every enterprise name containing a similar element constitutes unfair competition.

The SPC’s reasoning was based on the particular circumstances of the case, including the existing market recognition of “六福,” the similarity between “金六福尚美” and “六福,” the parties’ position as operators in the same industry, the defendant’s presumed knowledge of the earlier mark, and the resulting likelihood of confusion.

The SPC’s own description of the case states that it is intended to clarify the standard for assessing enterprise-name imitation and confusion and to address conduct involving the registration of a similar commercial identifier as an enterprise-name identifier.

Implications for brand owners

For international brand owners operating in China, the decision highlights the importance of monitoring not only trademark registrations but also enterprise-name registrations and marketplace use. A company may formally register an enterprise name through the relevant registration system, but that registration does not necessarily resolve whether subsequent use of the name creates confusion with an earlier trademark.

The Lukfook case also demonstrates that the analysis can extend beyond the formal registration of a mark or enterprise name. Market recognition, the relationship between the businesses, similarity of the identifiers, and the likelihood of confusion can all be relevant to an unfair competition claim. The SPC’s decision therefore provides a useful illustration of how Chinese courts may address the intersection between registered trademark rights, enterprise names, and unfair competition.

For brand owners facing a later enterprise name incorporating a similar commercial identifier, the decision indicates that formal registration of the name will not necessarily prevent an unfair competition claim where its use remains likely to mislead the relevant public.

← Back to News