The Jiangsu High Court has delivered a final judgment in the case of BEABA v. Shanghai Jieqiao Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘Jieqiao’) and Shanghai Aiduo Infant Products Co., Ltd. (‘Aiduo.’), upholding the original ruling and rejecting the defendants’ appeal. The court ordered Jieqiao and Aiduo. to jointly compensate BEABA for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 2.8 million (approximately USD 385,000).
BEABA, a renowned French infant care brand founded in 1989, is globally recognized for its innovative baby food makers and other premium baby products. After entering the Chinese market, BEABA built strong brand recognition among Chinese parents through extensive online and offline marketing. Its trademark “BEABA” and corporate name have become widely associated with high-quality, premium baby care products, earning numerous international design awards and establishing the brand as a symbol of excellence in the category.
In recent years, Jieqiao and Aiduo have engaged in large-scale unauthorized use of the “BEABA” mark or marks highly similar to it on infant diapers they produce and sell. They also replicated BEABA’s advertising language and falsely claimed their products were “originating from France,” misleading consumers. Notably, both companies had previously applied to register or acquired identical marks to BEABA’s registered trademarks—applications that were later invalidated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).
The infringing diapers were widely distributed through major e-commerce platforms including Tmall, JD.com, and Kidsland. The use of identical or highly similar marks created actual consumer confusion, significantly harming BEABA’s brand reputation and market order.
The case underwent both first-instance and appeal proceedings, during which the court issued authoritative rulings on four key issues:
1. Trademark Infringement Established: Similar Goods Determined Beyond Classification of Goods
Although the infringing diapers fall under Class 5 (medical and hygiene products), while BEABA’s registered marks cover Class 10 (baby feeding accessories like baby bottles and bottle racks), the court recognized that both products belong to the broader category of infant care goods. The consumer base is highly overlapping, and sales channels often intersect. Therefore, the court determined that the goods are “similar” under Chinese trademark law. The use of marks substantially identical or confusingly similar to BEABA’s on diapers was sufficient to cause public confusion, thus constituting trademark infringement.
2. Unfair Competition Confirmed: Foreign Enterprise Names Used in China Are Protected Under Anti-Unfair Competition Law
The court found that “BEABA” functions not only as a registered trademark but also as an influential company name used in the Chinese market. Through years of branding and marketing, the mark and the company name have developed strong, inseparable brand equity. Just like legally registered domestic enterprise names, a foreign company’s name used in commercial activities within China is protected under Article 6, Paragraph 2 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Jieqiao and Aiduo not only used the identical mark but also copied BEABA’s promotional content, demonstrating clear intent to exploit BEABA’s reputation. This conduct constitutes an actionable “unfair competition” act under the law.
3. Joint Liability Established: Associated Companies Acted in Collaboration
Jieqiao and Aiduo are affiliated entities that collaborated across production, sales, marketing, and promotion, forming a complete infringement chain. The court determined that both parties acted with shared intent and jointly carried out the infringing acts. As such, they are jointly and severally liable for damages under Chinese law.
4. Reasonable Compensation Awarded: Proportionality Between Infringement and Remedies
The first-instance court determined the compensation of RMB 2.8 million after considering multiple factors: BEABA’s well-established market reputation, the high volume of infringing products sold, the prolonged duration of infringement, the extensive distribution channels, the complexity of evidence gathering, and the reasonable legal and notarial expenses incurred by BEABA. The Jiangsu High Court upheld this amount on appeal, reinforcing the judicial principle that compensation should reflect the actual harm caused and align with the infringer’s illegal gains.
This landmark case underscores China’s increasing commitment to protecting foreign brands and enforcing intellectual property rights, particularly in the consumer goods and infant care sectors. It also serves as a strong warning to trademark squatters and copycat operators: proactive registration and genuine use are essential to secure rights in China’s competitive market.