Perspective | How to Identify and Target the Actual Manufacturers Behind Infringing Products
Published:
2025-09-26
In trademark enforcement practice, infringers often set up shell companies in places like Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin, or even register companies in Hong Kong, China, or Germany—often overseas—to package their counterfeit products. This strategy not only helps them conceal their illegal activities but also significantly complicates the task of rights holders seeking legal redress: shell companies typically lack real assets, making it difficult to enforce court rulings; meanwhile, when defendants are foreign entities, challenges arise in terms of jurisdiction and applicable law. Given these circumstances, how should we effectively combat infringement and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders?
In trademark enforcement practice, infringers often establish shell companies in places like Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin, or even register Chinese-Hong Kong or German entities overseas to package their counterfeit products. This strategy not only helps them conceal their illegal activities but also complicates the task of rights holders seeking legal redress: shell companies typically have no real assets, making it difficult to enforce court rulings; meanwhile, when the defendant is a foreign entity, challenges arise in terms of jurisdiction and applicable law. Given these circumstances, how should we effectively combat infringement and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders?
This article explores, through a typical case study, how to establish an evidence chain to prove the identity of the actual producer, while also providing rights holders with effective legal remedies by combining relevant legal grounds with practical approaches.
I. Case Summary
Lei Company discovered that infringing products circulating in the market were labeled with "Ou Company," a Hong Kong-registered entity, as the manufacturer. At this point, the company faces a significant challenge: If they sue Ou Company to cease infringement and compensate for damages, there’s a high likelihood that Ou Company is merely a shell corporation. Even if the lawsuit is successful, it would be difficult to compel the actual manufacturer to stop producing the infringing products, effectively allowing the real culprit to evade accountability. Meanwhile, since Ou Company is an overseas enterprise based in Hong Kong, China, there are practical hurdles in terms of jurisdiction and applicable law. The central issue in this case revolves around how to establish, through a robust chain of evidence, the identity of the actual manufacturer when the infringing product label points to an overseas or shell company—thereby enabling the protection of the rights holder’s legitimate interests.
II. Points of Contention
How can we break through the identification of the formal manufacturer and prove the actual producer of the infringing product, thereby safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the rights holder?
III. Establishing the Key Chain of Evidence to Identify the Actual Producer
The author conducted a thorough due diligence on Ou Company and its affiliated company, Hebei Mou'ang Company, uncovering the critical chain of evidence in this case. As a result, the court upheld the claim that Hebei Mou'ang Company is the manufacturer of the infringing products at issue. The process of establishing the evidence chain is outlined as follows:
1. Investigate the trademarks used on the infringing products.
Through the author's investigation, it was determined that the infringing product uses the trademark of a company named "Mouang." Based on this evidence, the actual manufacturer of the infringing product can be identified as Hebei Mouang Company.
2. Obtain the promotional brochure and business card of Company O at the exhibition.
After attending lubricant exhibitions held across the country, we finally spotted the booth of Company O at the expos in Xi'an and Nanjing, where we obtained Company O's brochure as well as the business card of Company O's manager.
The brochure lists the address, phone number, and factory photos of Company O, all of which match those of Hebei Company A, further strengthening the strong likelihood that Hebei Company A is the actual manufacturer of the infringing products.
The manager listed on the business card of Company O matches the legal representative of Hebei Company A, further strengthening the strong likelihood that Hebei Company A is the actual manufacturer of the infringing product.
3. Retrieve the corporate records of Ou Company in Hong Kong.
The file reveals that the registered household address of the person in charge of Company Ou is identical to the registered household address of the legal representative of Hebei Mou'ang Company.
4. Retrieve the registration files of Hebei Mou'ang Company.
The trademarks used by Company O on its infringing products, as well as in its brochures and business cards, all belong to the business cards of Hebei Mou'ang Company.
Based on the evidence provided, and applying the "Supreme People's Court's Reply Concerning Whether Victims of Product Liability Cases Can File Civil Lawsuits Against the Trademark Owner of the Product," as well as Article 108 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretations on the Application of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," the infringing product in question was manufactured by a company named Aong. High Probability , sufficient to establish that Company Ou and Company Mouang jointly engaged in the production and sale of infringing products.
IV. Court Ruling Perspectives
The plaintiff, Lei Company, is the owner of the registered trademark No. 57033XX, which remains valid during its registration period. As such, the plaintiff's exclusive rights to this registered trademark are legally protected, entitling it to investigate and gather evidence regarding alleged trademark infringements, conduct product examinations, and file lawsuits. Therefore, the plaintiff is properly qualified as a party to bring this legal action.
Regarding whether the product in question constitutes an infringing product: According to Article 57, items (ii) and (iii), of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, using a trademark that is similar to a registered trademark on identical goods without the permission of the trademark owner—or using a trademark that is identical or similar to a registered trademark on similar goods in a way that may cause confusion—constitutes an act likely to create confusion. Similarly, selling goods that infringe upon the exclusive rights of a registered trademark also falls under the category of trademark infringement.
Regarding whether the defendant, Mouang Company, has committed infringement: The packaging of the product in question prominently features Mouang Company’s trademark. According to relevant provisions of the "Supreme People's Court’s Reply on Whether Victims of Product Infringement Cases Can File Civil Lawsuits Against the Trademark Owner as Defendants," Mouang Company’s provision of its trademark for use on the infringing product should be regarded as identifying it as the producer. Although the packaging indicates that Oumou Company is the manufacturer, the production address and toll-free service number listed there are identical to those featured in Mouang Company’s own promotional materials. Furthermore, the "brand logos" listed under "Subsidiary Brands" in the promotional brochure provided by Leimou Company are all registered trademarks owned by Mouang Company. Additionally, Leimou Company’s submitted business card belonging to Li clearly identifies him as the General Manager of Nordic Mou Company, while also confirming his role as the legal representative of Mouang Company. Therefore, in accordance with Article 108 of the Supreme People's Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China"—which states that "if the evidence presented by a party bearing the burden of proof, after examination by the People’s Court and in light of relevant facts, leads the court to firmly believe that the fact to be proven is highly probable, the court shall recognize the existence of that fact"—the evidence provided by Leimou Company not only corroborates each other but also strongly suggests that Mouang Company is highly likely responsible for producing the infringing product. Consequently, this court accepts and adopts this evidence. Mouang Company, without the plaintiff’s authorization, has used a mark strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark on identical goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to the registered trademark. As such, Mouang Company must legally bear civil liabilities, including ceasing the infringement and compensating the plaintiff for any resulting losses.
V. Evidence Chain Due Diligence Method
When handling rights protection matters involving overseas or shell companies, lawyers can conduct extensive due diligence on the company's affiliated entities. The methods for conducting due diligence include, but are not limited to:
1. Attend the exhibition. By attending trade shows across the country showcasing similar products, collecting brochures and business cards from each exhibitor not only helps with individual cases but also aids in uncovering clues to more infringement incidents.
2. Follow social platforms like Douyin and Kuaishou. Given the widespread popularity of platforms like TikTok and Kuaishou, some manufacturers choose to showcase their products on these platforms, where a significant number of clues regarding infringing products can be discovered.
3. Follow the webpage. A website can both showcase the manufacturer's corporate strength and display a wide range of products in its product showcase area—some of which may even include numerous clues pointing to potential infringement issues.
4. Due diligence documents of the affiliated company's internal files. By accessing internal files, comprehensively understand relevant information about affiliated companies—including their historical change records, associated entities, and personnel.
5. Market research. Through extensive market research, we identify the sellers of infringing products, then persuade them to provide legitimate sources as a way to absolve themselves of liability. This approach ultimately aims to compel the sellers to reveal their supply channels or even pinpoint the actual manufacturers responsible for the infringing products.
6. Check trademarks registered by affiliated companies and the actual controller. By checking whether trademarks registered by affiliated companies or the actual controllers have been used on infringing products, we can identify the true manufacturer.
7. Visit the factories of genuine producers. This approach carries significant risks and is suitable only for exploring the perimeter of the factory; entering it recklessly is strongly discouraged.
The above outlines only some of the due-diligence approaches for the chain of evidence; specific analysis is required for each individual case to identify the actual producer and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the rights holder.
VI. Conclusion
When handling rights protection cases involving overseas-registered or shell companies, lawyers can conduct extensive due diligence on the companies' affiliated entities to build a robust chain of evidence, thereby achieving a high degree of probability in proving liability. Such due diligence methods may include attending trade shows and exhibitions for promotional purposes, analyzing online information, examining connections between corporate executives and their associated firms, monitoring platforms like Douyin, and reviewing registered trademarks. By uncovering as many links as possible between the overseas or shell company and its affiliates, lawyers can convincingly demonstrate that the affiliated company is, in fact, the actual producer of the infringing products—thus increasing the likelihood of identifying the true manufacturer as the defendant—and ultimately achieving the goal of protecting the client's rights.
VII. Legal Counsel’s Advice
Given that current infringement cases are becoming increasingly covert, making it gradually more difficult to protect one's rights, failing to successfully safeguard your interests due to an incomplete chain of evidence could lead to significant losses. Therefore, it is advisable to promptly hire a professional lawyer when your rights are violated, in order to achieve twice the result with half the effort.
P.S.: Applicable legal provisions
Article 64, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China: Sellers who can prove that they were unaware the goods they sold infringed upon registered trademark rights—and who can also identify and provide information about the supplier—shall not be held liable for damages.
"Reply from the Supreme People's Court on Whether Victims of Product Liability Cases Can File Civil Lawsuits Against the Trademark Owner of the Product as Defendant: Any enterprise or individual who identifies itself—through its name, corporate name, trademark, or other recognizable markings—on a product, thereby indicating its role as the manufacturer, shall be deemed a 'producer' as defined under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China."
Article 69 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that legal facts and documents duly notarized through statutory procedures shall be regarded by the people's courts as the basis for ascertaining facts, unless there is contrary evidence sufficient to overturn the notarial certification.
The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation No. 108 on the Application of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" states: "If, after examination and in conjunction with relevant facts, the people's court is firmly convinced that the evidence provided by a party bearing the burden of proof indicates a high probability of the existence of the fact to be proven, the court shall recognize that such a fact indeed exists." These legal provisions are sufficient to establish that the parties jointly engaged in the production and sale of infringing products.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
