DeHeng’s Representation in Unfair Competition Dispute Case of Vehicle Maintenance Service Selected as a Typical Case by Supreme People’s Court

2025-09-10

On September 8, 2025, to mark the 2025 China Fair Competition Policy Awareness Week (September 8-12), the Supreme People’s Court released typical anti-unfair competition cases for 2025 to fully leverage the exemplary and guiding role of judicial rulings. The Unfair Competition Dispute Case of “Vehicle Maintenance Service,” represented by lawyer Pan Juanjuan of DeHeng’s Shanghai Office, was selected.

Case Overview

Company A holds registered trademarks for “X Hu” (meaning tiger in Chinese) and “X Hu Vehicle Maintenance” in Class 37 for vehicle maintenance and repair services. These trademarks enjoy high market recognition. In September 2023, Defendants Beijing B Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Company B”), Beijing C Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Company C”), and Beijing D Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Company D”) launched a low-price marketing campaign for vehicle maintenance products/services under the brand “Shock Tiger Price.” The three defendants used the term “Shock Tiger Price” in their online and offline advertisements and promotional materials. Related promotional articles and videos featured images of vehicle maintenance personnel, depicted as tiger characters, holding products with the “Tiger” logo, where the Chinese character for “tiger” used the same unique artistic font as that of Company A. The videos were paired with titles such as “Confused about vehicle maintenance?” “Sloppy vehicle maintenance?” and “Deceitful vehicle maintenance?” Below the videos, online users commented, “Shocking X Tiger?” and “Not a word mentioned X Tiger, yet everything points to X Tiger.” Another scene showed a tiger-character figure being knocked to the ground, accompanied by titles like “Shock Tiger Price, not misleading” and “Shock Tiger Price, not deceitful.” Company A filed a lawsuit demanding that the three defendants cease the aforementioned infringing acts and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 5.3 million.

The Minhang District People’s Court of Shanghai, in the first instance, held that the three defendants, through the low-price marketing campaign named “Shock Tiger Price,” fabricated and disseminated false and misleading information portraying the plaintiff as an unethical market operator, damaging the commercial reputation and product standing of the competitor, constituting an act of commercial defamation. The court ordered the three defendants to cease the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 5 million. The three defendants appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. The second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical example of regulating acts of commercial defamation. The ruling correctly delineates the boundaries of lawful advertising by business operators, accurately identifies unfair competition acts that defame or disparage competitors, and firmly prohibits the dissemination of misleading information that harms the commercial reputation of others. In the fast-growing internet platform economy, this case holds exemplary significance for protecting fair market competition among market entities in accordance with the law.