[Q&A] Risks of Naming Companies Suspected of IP Infringement

2025. 12. 5

Question:Recently, our company has discovered that several companies may be selling counterfeit products under our brand. In order to alert distributors and consumers, we are considering publishing an open letter on our official website listing the names of the companies suspected of engaging in such counterfeiting activities. Is this appropriate, and does it pose any risks?

Answer: It is legitimate for a company to protect its intellectual property rights and to inform the public of potential counterfeiting or infringing activities. However, if you intend to disclose the identities of specific parties suspected of infringement in such a document, you must proceed with great caution.

This is because once such information is made public, it effectively amounts to the rights holder asserting that the relevant individuals or entities may be engaging in infringement, which constitutes negative information and an adverse evaluation of those parties. China’s Civil Code explicitly provides that the commercial reputation of enterprises is a civil right protected by law. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law further stipulates that “business operators must not fabricate or disseminate, nor instruct others to fabricate or disseminate, false or misleading information that damages the commercial reputation or product reputation of other business operators.”

If you lack sufficiently credible evidence to establish that the relevant party has indeed engaged in infringing acts—such as merely observing that an online shop is selling products bearing the brand, and assuming that the goods must be counterfeit solely because the seller is not an authorised distributor—then making public statements of suspected infringement before determining whether the goods are in fact counterfeit may constitute the unfair competition behaviour described above.

In addition, Chinese law allows an accused party to bring a declaratory action of non-infringement, requesting the court to confirm that its conduct does not constitute infringement and to require the accusing party to bear corresponding liability for damages.

We recommend the following:

You must verify the identity of the suspected infringing party. For example, where counterfeit goods are purchased from an online shop, you should verify the true identity of the suspected infringer by cross-checking the shop’s registered details on the e-commerce platform, the sender information on dispatch, the issuer of the invoice, and other relevant information to avoid misidentification or inaccurate statements. 

You should also obtain conclusive evidence of the infringing conduct—such as having actually purchased counterfeit goods and retaining all evidence of the purchase process, or situations where the administrative authorities have seized counterfeit goods following an administrative complaint. (It is essential to examine original evidence; do not rush to publish public statements on the basis of mere photocopies or incomplete materials.)

With regard to wording, accuracy is essential. For instance, if you possess evidence of infringement but there is not yet an effective judgment or administrative penalty confirming the party’s liability for infringement, you should avoid using the term “infringement” directly.

Furthermore, the risk can be significantly reduced if, before publishing any information, you first lodge a complaint with the competent administrative authority and only proceed with publication after the authority has confirmed the nature of the party’s conduct.