Date: 2026-10-01
Views: 
Author: Beijing Henglue Law Firm[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, if live-streaming influencers infringe others' trademark rights, the responsibility does not lie solely with the influencers themselves: the merchants who actually sell the products are the primary responsible parties; if the influencers know or should have known about the infringement but still promote and sell the products in their own name, they may be guilty of aiding and abetting the infringement and bear joint and several liability; and the platforms that fail to fulfill their obligations of review and necessary measures shall bear corresponding responsibilities. According to Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, using the same or similar trademarks on the same or similar products without authorization constitutes infringement; and according to Article 38 of the E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China, if the platform knows or should have known that the operator is infringing but fails to take necessary measures, it shall bear joint and several liability. Right holders should first fix the live-streaming video and order evidence, and then choose to file a complaint for removal, seek administrative investigation, or initiate litigation to protect their rights.
1. Problem background and typical scenarios
There are several main types of infringements in live-streaming sales: streamers displaying, explaining, and selling counterfeit or knockoff products in the live stream; merchants using others' registered trademarks in store names, product titles, and live stream ads to attract traffic; and stores using live stream backgrounds that are highly similar to the offline stores of rights holders to create confusion. When handling such cases in Beijing, the court usually focuses on whether the use of the trademarks exceeds the scope of indicative fair use, whether it is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public, and the degree of awareness of the infringement among all parties. Enterprises can refer to this for reference.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal servicesEstablish a pre-review mechanism.
II. Key points of contention
The controversy focuses on three aspects: the subject, the act, and the defense. Regarding the subject, the roles of merchants, live streamers, agencies, and platforms are different, and the forms and proportions of their responsibilities vary accordingly. If the live streamer only provides verbal recommendations, the court will determine their awareness based on whether they participated in product selection, pricing, and revenue sharing. Regarding the act, the core issue is to distinguish between trademark-based use and descriptive or indicative use. Trademarked short videos, live stream ads, and live stream room decorations may also cause confusion. Regarding the defense, sellers often claim that the goods are legally sourced, but they must prove that they have fulfilled their reasonable due diligence obligations and can explain the sources of their supplies. If the purchase price and selling price are significantly lower than the market price and the seller fails to verify the authorization, the defense is usually difficult to succeed.
III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm
Henglue once represented a case of trademark infringement and unfair competition, which is of reference significance for the determination of liability and compensation. The plaintiff, Company A, is a well-known paper industry enterprise. Its registered trademark is approved for use on products such as sanitary napkins and has been recognized as a well-known trademark. The defendant, Company B, has been authorized by an outsider to use similar trademarks and design patents since September 2023, producing and selling similar products through e-commerce channels. The plaintiff sued in April 2024, claiming that the defendant imitated the well-known trademark and caused confusion with the packaging and decoration, demanding compensation of 980,000 yuan. Henglue LawyerLiu YuanyuanThe lawyer argued against the infringement on three grounds: the authorization source is legal, the overall logo is recognizable and distinguishable, and the packaging and decoration do not constitute a commercially influential logo. The court ruled that the defendant infringed the trademark and dismissed the claim of unfair competition. The court ordered the defendant to pay 50,000 yuan in economic damages and 10,000 yuan in reasonable expenses, totaling 60,000 yuan, a reduction of more than 920,000 yuan from the plaintiff's claim of 980,000 yuan. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.
IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis
The rights holder should:
- Record and notarize the scripts, stickers, and product pages in the live stream room in a timely manner for evidence collection;
- Complain about the removal of the product through the platform's intellectual property protection mechanism, and apply for the disclosure of sales data;
- File a complaint or lawsuit to demand that the infringement be stopped and compensation be provided.
- Verify the trademark authorization chain and registration status, and keep the authorization documents on file;
- Establish a review process for product selection and live-stream scripts to avoid profiting from others' goodwill;
- After receiving the infringement notice, immediately remove the content from the platform and preserve the evidence.
5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice
The high-risk points of live-streaming sales lie in the rapid spread of information, the difficulty of preserving evidence, and the large number of parties involved. When rights holders discover infringements, they should immediately fix the live-streaming video and order links to avoid losing evidence after the links are deleted. Operators should conduct trademark and authorization reviews before product selection, rather than relying solely on verbal commitments from suppliers. After litigation, the amount of compensation is closely related to the sales scale and the profits gained from the infringement. As defendants, they should submit evidence of sales and profits as soon as possible. If the other party refuses to perform after the judgment, they can take legal action through the courts to enforce the judgment.Creditor-debtor relations and enforcement case servicesPromote the collection of payments.
VI. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: If a live streamer sells infringing products during a live stream, will the streamer definitely be held accountable?
It's not necessarily the case. It depends on the streamer's role and cognitive state. If the streamer is the store operator, they will usually bear the brunt of responsibility as a seller. If they are entrusted to promote the products, it is necessary to determine whether they know or should have known about the infringement of the products, and whether they promised to sell the products in their own name. According to Article 1196 of the Civil Code, those who assist others in committing infringements shall bear joint and several liabilities; if they have fulfilled their reasonable review obligations, can prove that they were unaware of the infringement and stopped it in time, they may be relieved or even exempted from liability. Therefore, it is very important for live-streaming platforms to keep authorization and review records.
Q2: If the rights holder claims compensation, what evidence do they need to prepare?
The core evidence includes the trademark registration certificate and proof of rights status, notarized recordings of live broadcasts and product links, physical items obtained through notarized orders, profit clues such as sales and commission from live-streaming sales, proof of the right holder's own sales or licensing fees, and evidence of the duration of the infringement. According to Article 63 of the Trademark Law, compensation can be determined based on actual losses, the infringer's profits, or a multiple of the license fee. For malicious infringement with serious circumstances, punitive damages of no less than one and no more than five times the infringer's profits may be claimed. The more complete the evidence is, the more support there will be for the compensation claim.
Q3: How much does it cost to protect trademarks like this?
The litigation fees shall be calculated in accordance with the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" and accumulated in stages based on the amount of the litigation request, to be borne by the losing party; attorneys' fees are usually negotiated on a per-case basis or as a percentage of the subject matter value, subject to the upper limit of the risk-based fee ratio, with the specific terms being governed by the entrustment contract. Notarization fees, appraisal fees, and travel expenses are necessary expenses, and reasonable expenses can be claimed in the lawsuit. It is recommended to first assess the scale of the infringement and the other party's repayment ability. For small-scale infringements, priority should be given to platform and administrative complaints, while for large-scale infringements, litigation should be initiated to avoid the cost of protecting rights exceeding the recoverable amount.
Q4: How long does it usually take from obtaining evidence to receiving compensation?
Complaints on platforms typically take several days to several weeks to take effect, and administrative complaints should be handled within the prescribed time limit according to law. For civil litigation, the first-instance ordinary procedure generally lasts six months, and the summary procedure lasts three months. The second-instance procedure typically lasts three months. If the other party fails to perform after the judgment takes effect, you need to apply for enforcement. Overall, it usually takes several months to a year from filing the lawsuit to actually recovering the money. If you apply for property preservation before or during the litigation to freeze the other party's account, it can often significantly increase the success rate of mediation and the efficiency of recovering the money.
Q5: If you discover that your rights have been infringed or receive a lawyer's letter, what should you do first?
If you are the right holder, the first step is to immediately notarize the live stream and webpage and fix the order link, then file a complaint with the platform to request the removal of the infringing content and evaluate whether to sue. If you are the party being complained against or receiving a legal letter, the first step is to verify the trademark authorization chain and purchase invoices to confirm whether you can claim a legitimate source. At the same time, immediately remove the infringing products and preserve the communication records. Regardless of which party you are, you should consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible to determine whether to settle the dispute, seek administrative remedies, or initiate litigation, in order to avoid missing the deadlines for defense and providing evidence.
This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.
VII. Related public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)
The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media outlets that have been publicly released. They are unrelated to the cases handled by our firm and are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules. They do not constitute opinions on specific cases.
[Case No.](2024) Zhejiang No. 0803 Civil Case No. 1192
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Qujiang District, Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province conducted the first-instance trial, and the Intermediate People's Court of Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province conducted the second-instance trial (Supreme People's Court 2025 Typical Cases of Anti-Unfair Competition by People's Courts · Case of Traffic Diversion and Live Streaming Selling Infringing Trademark Rights and Unfair Competition Disputes).
[Judicial Summary]The Hua Company enjoys four registered trademarks, including the well-known trademark "Hua" on mobile phone products. The Dai Company and Zhang failed to obtain authorization and used multiple Douyin accounts to produce and publish a large number of short videos featuring the trademarks involved as live stream traffic entry points. They also used the live stream rooms highly similar to the Hua Company's offline stores as the background, and used the trademarks involved in various ways, such as stickers, the host's attire, language and behavior, and product displays, to sell digital products of other brands and earn commissions. The court determined that their use of the trademarks involved far exceeded the indicative scope of fair use and was likely to cause consumer confusion, constituting trademark infringement. Their actions of publishing short videos and live stream stickers also constituted acts of unfair competition as stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The first-instance court applied a three-fold punitive damages based on the profits earned from the commission during the infringement period and awarded a total of 1.1 million yuan in compensation. The second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Source]China Court Network (The Supreme People's Court Releases Typical Cases of Anti-Unfair Competition in People's Courts in 2025) (2025-09)
[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing City (case of online live-streaming infringement of trademark rights)
[Judicial Summary]The Court found that the products involved in the case were not produced or authorized by the right holder, and the sales constituted trademark infringement. Considering that the trademark involved in the case enjoys a certain degree of popularity and the duration of live-stream marketing was relatively long, the defendant should have the ability to identify the brand, quality, price, and supply source of the products sold. Moreover, the purchase price and selling price of the products were relatively low, and the defendant failed to provide evidence to prove that the source and authorization were verified when purchasing the products. Therefore, the defendant's defense of legal source cannot be established. The platform operator has fulfilled its obligations of pre-event notification and post-event attention, and there is no fault on its part. The Court ruled that the Liuyun Trading Department should compensate for the economic losses of 40,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 4,000 yuan.
[Source]China Court Online (Online live-streaming sales infringe others' trademark rights, and the defense of having a legitimate source is not validated. The court orders compensation!) (2024-12)
If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Liu Yuanyuan·Beijing Henglue 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 a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.