China's Supreme People's Court awarded RMB 79.17 million in economic loss compensation and reasonable expenses in the LAFITE dispute, applying punitive damages. The case offers a concrete example of Chinese courts protecting an international brand against deliberate imitation.

The dispute and the result

The rights holder owned the LAFITE and CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD trademarks for alcoholic drinks. The court's published account records an established association between LAFITE and the Chinese name 拉菲. Defendants marketed wine under 拉菲庄园 and LAFEI MANOR. Following earlier proceedings against the disputed registration, the owner brought civil claims.

In case (2022) 最高法民终313号, the Supreme People's Court found deliberate exploitation of the claimant's reputation. It held the signs infringed and the exaggerated heritage claims amounted to false publicity. Serious, intentional infringement justified punitive damages. The combined award was RMB 79.17 million, including reasonable expenses. The Court selected the dispute among its ten major IP cases for 2023, published in April 2024.

Why this is a protection success

The court did not accept the defendants' attempt to shelter deliberate imitation behind their own registration history. This is a substantive enforcement outcome for an overseas rights holder, rather than a statement of policy alone. The published account also distinguishes the registration proceedings from the later infringement claims.

The award is a judgment result. The cited summaries do not establish how much money was ultimately collected. Nor does this article claim that every registration or every use of a similar Chinese name will produce the same outcome.

Practical lessons for a brand owner

Our practical recommendation is to prepare the Chinese-language evidence alongside the foreign-language portfolio. Keep dated packaging, distributor material, advertising, press references and sales documents showing how buyers connect the names. A short English brand history is less useful than an organised file linking each proposition to a dated record.

If a competing registration exists, obtain its complete file and identify the available challenge route. Separately preserve evidence of actual marketplace conduct. A dispute about entitlement to a registration and a claim about infringing sales may need different pleadings, evidence and remedies; do not assume one proceeding automatically completes the other.

For a damages assessment, gather evidence about duration, channels, scale and the defendant's conduct. Avoid treating the headline award as a standard compensation tariff. The written instruction should identify which investigation and proceedings are included; ordinary registration pricing does not cover litigation of this scope.

Read the case alongside other outcomes

The Jordan/Qiaodan case addresses a different rights and registration problem, while New Balance/Xin Bai Lun explains the consequences of Chinese-name conflicts. These are complementary lessons: early planning matters, and effective judicial protection is available where the rights and evidence support it.

For another positive example, see Michelin's protection of its Chinese translation. For filing strategy, consult our bad-faith applications guide or request a China trademark search.

Official sources

Public sources checked on 25 October 2026. This is commentary on a public case, not a claim that MY CNTM represented any party.