[Direct answer]Using memes owned by others for commercial purposes without authorization generally constitutes infringement. However, if the materials have entered the public domain, are used for fair citation, or have obtained written commercial authorization, the conclusion will be different. Printing memes created from original cartoon images, film and television screenshots, or real-life portraits on product packaging, placing them in paid advertisements, or using them to attract customers to stores often simultaneously infringes copyrights, the right to disseminate information online, portrait rights, and even trademark use. It is necessary to verify the authorization chain one by one. The judgment focuses on three aspects: whether the ownership of the materials is clear, whether the use is for commercial purposes, and whether the user can provide valid authorization documents. If the rights holder claims compensation, they must first prove their prior ownership of the rights and the actual use by the other party. If either of these two conditions is missing, the request will be difficult to establish.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

The dissemination path of memes and the habits of enterprises in using images intersect at the places where rights review is most easily overlooked. Operators casually save an image from social platforms, chat groups, or content platforms, pair it with a caption, and post it on public accounts, product detail pages, live stream overlays, offline posters, or promotional packaging. They rarely inquire about the original author, the permissible uses allowed by platform agreements, or whether the image has been registered as a trademark. Risks accumulate in layers: 1. The first layer involves the copyright of the artwork itself, including rights such as reproduction, distribution, adaptation, and online dissemination. 2. The second layer concerns recognizable real-life portraits, film and television characters, anime images, or corporate logos in the images, which may trigger issues with portrait rights, prior copyrights, or trademark rights. 3. When memes are repeatedly used as product source identifiers, they may also fall under the scope of trademark infringement and unfair competition. More common misconceptions include assuming that images freely downloadable online and widely used without watermarks are automatically licensed for commercial use, unaware that non-commercial dissemination and for-profit use are legally distinct. Disputes often begin with a rights holder's letter, a platform complaint, or a product removal notice, at which point enterprises realize they lack authorization certificates and cannot clarify the source of the materials or the design commissioning relationship. By the time the other party has completed timestamped evidence collection, notarized purchases, or page notarization, it becomes more costly and reactive to retroactively obtain authorization or remove content.

II. Key points of contention

Controversies often begin with whether the basis of rights can be established. Not every meme automatically receives copyright protection: simple emojis, common gestures, and reprocessed public domain materials may be excluded due to insufficient originality; while paintings that express originality and reflect the author's choices and arrangements are considered artworks. The plaintiff must first clarify which rights they are claiming, the completion and first publication time of the work, and the chain of rights acquisition. Otherwise, subsequent comparisons will be impossible. The second layer involves proving substantial similarity and contact: comparing the accused design with the rights-protected image in terms of composition, lines, color schemes, and character features, and corroborating this with evidence of the rights-protected image's prior public disclosure and the defendant's potential access to it. The defendant often responds by claiming independent creation, sourcing materials from third parties, or pointing out obvious differences. The third layer concerns the boundaries of commercial use: corporate account tweets, product packaging, paid advertising, and live stream backgrounds are typically deemed profit-making uses, while non-profit personal chat forwarding is generally excluded. This distinction directly impacts liability determination and compensation calculation. The fourth layer focuses on the allocation of responsibilities: platform operators, actual designers, outsourcing service providers, and e-commerce platforms each play different roles. Whether the platform takes timely measures after receiving a valid notice determines whether it should bear liability for expanded damages. The fifth layer addresses compensation and defenses: weighing various calculation methods such as the rights holder's losses, the infringer's profits, reference to royalties, and statutory damages, and allowing the defendant to mitigate the amount through defenses such as lawful sources, valid authorizations, rights abuse, or statute of limitations. If the same use is simultaneously alleged to infringe trademarks and constitute unfair competition, the court will also review the trademark's popularity, potential confusion, and whether the packaging and decoration have any impact. Not all claims necessarily hold concurrently.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

A case handled by our firm illustrates the key points of defense and offense when using others' trademarks for commercial purposes. The plaintiff, Company A, is a well-known domestic paper industry enterprise. Its "EFGH" trademark was approved for use in Category 5 sanitary napkins, and has been recognized as a well-known trademark by multiple courts and administrative authorities. The defendant, Company B, was established in November 2020 and obtained authorization from the third party Sheng ** to use the "EFGK" registered trademark and design patent in September 2023. It produced and sold "EFGK" sanitary napkins, which were sold on the C Company e-commerce platform. In April 2024, Company A sued Company B for infringement of well-known trademark rights and unfair competition, alleging that "EFGK" imitated "EFGH" and caused confusion through similar packaging and decorations, demanding cessation of infringement, compensation of 980,000 yuan, and removal of the products by C Company with a compensation of 20,000 yuan, as well as public apologies by Company B. Company B appointed lawyers to defend against the case, focusing on the source of authorization, the scale of infringement, evidence of confusion, and the basis for compensation, aiming to minimize liability. The court partially adopted the lawyers' arguments: on infringement determination, it confirmed that "EFGH" constituted a well-known trademark when "EFGK" was applied for, and Company B's use of "EFGK" constituted imitation and trademark infringement. However, Company A failed to prove that the packaging and decorations had a certain degree of popularity, and the claim of unfair competition was rejected. On liability, the court ordered Company B to cease infringement and issue public apologies. Given the short duration and small scale of infringement and the lack of unfair competition, the court awarded economic damages of 50,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 10,000 yuan, totaling 60,000 yuan, and rejected claims against C Company and other excessive demands. Compared with the original claim of 980,000 yuan, the compensation was reduced by over 920,000 yuan. The case was represented by Attorney Liu Yuanyuan of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative authority). Breaking down the legal reasoning of this case, it also provides reference for enterprises handling disputes over meme-style materials: 1. The rights basis and evidence of popularity must be established first. Without proof of a certain degree of influence, decoration-related claims will be rejected in their entirety. 2. The defendant's defense is not a blanket denial, but rather narrowing the focus to the authorization chain, actual usage duration, sales scale, and causality, using verifiable financial and listing records to reduce the compensation base. 3. The court's discretionary determination of compensation rather than accepting claims without question reflects the inherent discrepancy between the claimed amount and supporting evidence, which will ultimately reflect in the final outcome. 4. Whether the platform seller is liable depends on whether the notice is adequate and the response timely, not simply assuming liability based on the products being listed. Henglu Law Firm advises that when receiving similar claims, enterprises should promptly inventory the source of materials, authorization documents, listing time, and sales data before deciding on negotiation, removal, or litigation.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The citation standards must include the full name and specify the effective date to avoid confusing the amendment date with the implementation date: The Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) defines the rights content and reasonable use boundaries of artworks, which is the first point for judging whether emoji patterns are protected and whether their use exceeds the boundaries; The Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019) regulates trademark use, well-known trademark protection, and similarity and confusion. It applies when an image is repeatedly used as a source identifier; The Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 17, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) provides another line of rights when it involves design patterns; The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019) handles situations such as packaging and decoration and unauthorized use of others' influential logos, but the claimant must provide evidence of the influence; Procedurally, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024) determines jurisdiction, evidence preservation, and behavior preservation. Case acceptance fees are accumulated in stages according to the Methods for Payment of Litigation Costs (implemented on April 1, 2007). For practical implementation: First, establish a material inventory, recording the source website, download time, platform agreement, authorization scope, and expiration date for each item; Second, before commercial use, distinguish between personal non-commercial licenses and enterprise commercial licenses. For products, packaging, or paid placement, obtain written authorization; Third, when commissioning external designers, include clauses in the contract regarding the legality of materials and indemnification for infringement; Fourth, upon receiving a protection letter, first preserve the webpage and sales data through notarization, then decide whether to remove the content. Do not delete it directly without preserving evidence; Fifth, verify the three-year statute of limitations and the stability of the other party's rights, and if necessary, raise defenses such as legitimate source, authorization chain, or abuse of rights; Sixth, for cases involving well-known trademarks, packaging and decoration, or cross-category use, commission professional lawyers to address each claim separately. For supporting explanations, please refer to the accompanying document.Intellectual property protection and corporate law\nPage.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

The most important concept that needs to be corrected is equating retrieval with usability. The faster memes circulate, the more likely companies will skip ownership verification, while rights holders often complete time stamps, notarized purchases, and page fixes before suing. By the time they receive legal notices, the initiative has already shifted to the other side. Secondly, don't accept all claims indiscriminately: copyright infringement, trademark infringement, portrait rights violations, and unfair competition each have independent constitutive elements. The absence of any link in the chain of evidence, such as proof of popularity or confusion, may render the entire claim invalid. It's more cost-effective to break down each issue individually than to settle them globally. Thirdly, compensation amounts must align with supporting evidence. Sales duration, distribution scope, actual sales, and licensing fees can all serve as bases for reducing or supporting claims. Guess-based pricing is usually not accepted. For daily compliance, archiving source materials, original authorization documents, design commission contracts, and online approval records is essential. When employees leave or outsourcing partners change, thorough handovers are crucial. Finally, when encountering platform complaints or removal notices, preserve backend data and product pages before taking action to avoid post-removal disputes. For large-scale disputes involving well-known trademarks, early involvement of professional lawyers for assessment is more prudent than reacting passively after the fact.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it considered infringement for a company to print internet memes on product packaging?

In most cases, it will be deemed an infringement, provided that the meme image is original, the rights holder can provide proof of prior ownership, and the use falls into profit-making scenarios such as product packaging and paid advertisements. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021), copying, distribution, and online dissemination all constitute exclusive rights. Printing artworks on packaging and selling them without authorization typically falls under the scope of the right to copy and distribute. If the image contains identifiable human portraits, it may also involve portrait rights. There are three main scenarios where infringement does not occur: the image lacks originality or has entered the public domain; the use falls into fair use scenarios such as appropriate quotation for commentary or introduction; or the enterprise holds a written commercial authorization covering the intended use. If the image is also used as a trademark to identify the product's source, it will be reviewed for similarity and confusion according to the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019). The conclusion cannot be based solely on whether it charges a fee. Instead, the rights basis, use purpose, and authorization scope must be checked one by one.

Q2: For claiming that the meme has a prior copyright, what ownership certificates need to be submitted?

The following are the three sets of evidence that need to be prepared, corresponding to the generation of rights, the fixation of content, and prior public disclosure. First, the source of ownership: the work registration certificate, the original design drafts and hierarchical source files, the record of the creative process, the commissioned creation contract or the agreement on works created in the course of employment, the author's authorization letter, and the chain of rights transfer. If the chain of evidence is missing, the registration certificate alone is insufficient to prove ownership. Second, the fixation of content: the complete design with a timestamp, a snapshot of the first publication page, the release time on the platform backend, and a notarized certificate or certified timestamp to fix the completion date and disclosure date before the other party's use. Third, the facts of alleged infringement: the physical packaging, notarized purchase certificates, preserved details pages and tweet pages, backend listing records, and sales data. According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024), evidence must be submitted within the time limit for evidence presentation, and electronic data must retain the original carrier. Notarizing platform pages in a timely manner can avoid the other party deleting them and making it impossible to verify them later.

Q3: When the claim amount is 980,000 yuan, according to which bracket is the case acceptance fee divided and accumulated in stages?

According to the rules of the "Procedural Fees Payment Method" (implemented on April 1, 2007), the acceptance fees for property cases are calculated based on the amount of the litigation request, rather than applying a single rate to the entire claim of 980,000 yuan. For amounts not exceeding 10,000 yuan, a fixed amount is charged per case. For amounts exceeding 10,000 yuan but not exceeding 100,000 yuan, a decreasing rate is applied to each segment. The total amount is calculated by adding the fees for each segment. When the case is filed, the plaintiff pays the acceptance fees in advance, and the losing party ultimately bears the fees or shares them according to the liability ratio. This means that if the claim is for 980,000 yuan but only 60,000 yuan is ultimately supported, the advance acceptance fees will not be fully refunded due to the reduced compensation. Excessive claims themselves carry costs. Lawyer's fees are charged separately, with no government-set pricing. They are calculated based on the number of cases, the amount of the claim, or an hourly agreement, subject to the terms of the contract. If ownership notarization, page preservation, or the purchase of notarization and appraisal services are required, notarization fees and evidence collection fees will also be incurred. Before taking action, it is more practical to compare the range of compensation that can be supported with the advance fees paid, rather than just focusing on the amount of the claim.

Q4: When does the six-month time limit for the first-instance ordinary procedure start from the date of filing the case?

The starting point is the date of filing the case, not the date of submitting materials or receiving a letter of rights protection. According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 24, 2021 and implemented on January 1, 2024), the first-instance ordinary procedure shall be concluded within six months from the date of filing the case, and the summary procedure within three months. The second-instance procedure generally takes three months; if it needs to be extended, the approval procedures shall be carried out in accordance with the law. It is necessary to pay attention to several periods that are not included in the trial time limit: announcement service, jurisdiction objections and appeals, judicial appraisal, out-of-court settlements, and the extended evidentiary period after adding parties will all delay the actual conclusion of the case. In intellectual property cases involving ownership identification, evidence of popularity, similarity comparison, or calculating compensation based on sales data, appraisal and cross-examination often take up most of the time. It is recommended to establish a time limit ledger from the first day, marking the date of filing the case, the expiration date of the evidentiary period, the application node for appraisal, the date of the trial, and the appeal period one by one; the right holder should also check the three-year statute of limitations to avoid the procedural delay exceeding the protection window of substantive rights.

Q5: On the day you receive the letter from the rights holder's lawyer, should you first remove the content from the platform or first gather evidence?

The order should be to first stabilize the current situation and then decide whether to remove the product, rather than the other way around. On the same day, actions should be prioritized as follows: completely preserve the physical packaging, product details page, promotional tweets, live stream banners, and backend listing records; if possible, obtain notarization or trusted timestamp certification; export sales data, inventory, placement records, and authorization documents; and archive internal approvals, design commissions, and source emails for materials. Once these materials are deleted, it will be difficult to clarify the duration, scale, and subjective status of their use in the future. After preservation, verify whether the ownership certificates attached to the letters are valid, whether the claimed rights correspond to the actual use, and whether written permissions covering the intended use are held. Then decide whether to remove the product, send a response letter clarifying the situation, negotiate authorization, or defend against lawsuits. Platform complaints have specific time limits. Removing the product promptly helps prevent damage from spreading, but does not constitute an admission of infringement. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on November 11, 2020 and implemented on June 1, 2021) and the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019), the constitutive elements of various claims differ. It is more prudent to verify each claim individually before responding.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudicative guidelines in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials to avoid missing the statutory time limits. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Liu Yuanyuan·Beijing Hengluo Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.