Chinese courts ordered a restaurant operator to stop using 米芝莲 and awarded Michelin RMB 10 million. The successful claim illustrates how protection for an international brand can account for the Chinese names consumers actually recognise.

A Cantonese translation, not an unrelated name

The published official account identifies MICHELIN and 米其林 as the claimant's trademarks and describes 米芝莲 as an established Cantonese translation. The restaurant operator used 米芝莲 without authorisation and promoted its link with Michelin. The first-instance court ordered cessation and awarded RMB 10 million. The Hubei High People's Court upheld the result on appeal.

The courts considered usage and recognition rather than assuming a foreign mark could have only one Chinese translation. Hubei's official account describes the dispute as a successful example of protection for a foreign well-known mark across categories and for its dialect translation. It records full support for the RMB 10 million claim.

What the decision demonstrates

The protection addressed a proven market connection between the names. It did not stop at an exact comparison of English letters or the claimant's most familiar Mandarin name. This matters to overseas businesses whose products or publications acquire different names in different Chinese-speaking markets.

The result does not mean that every possible transliteration belongs automatically to a foreign brand. Our reading of the case is that evidence connecting the particular expression to the claimant was central. Treat broad protection as something to substantiate in the relevant dispute, rather than assuming international fame settles every issue.

The reported award is not proof of payment or a prediction of another claimant's recovery. This article also does not describe the award as punitive damages: a substantial award and a punitive-damages calculation are different propositions.

Build a usable language evidence file

Our practical recommendation is to list the English mark, the adopted Mandarin name, regional names and material variants before choosing a filing strategy. For each expression, record who uses it, since when, in which territory and for what goods or services.

Keep dated editions of publications, Chinese packaging, authorised advertisements, distributor agreements and independent references. Preserve the original context of each item, including the date and source. If enforcement becomes necessary, make it possible to distinguish the owner's use, independent public recognition and the opposing party's conduct.

Review proposed names and relevant classes before launch. Do not use this case as a reason to skip ordinary searches or registrations. A strong evidence portfolio and a deliberate filing plan serve different purposes and are worth preparing together.

If another operator is already using a related name, capture its storefront, website and promotional material before contacting it. Ask for an assessment of the available rights and remedies before choosing a complaint or court claim. The factual circumstances, standing and current law require their own review.

Related cases and practical guidance

LAFITE's successful enforcement case provides another positive outcome, involving deliberate imitation and punitive damages. Compare it with Jordan/Qiaodan and New Balance/Xin Bai Lun to understand why different rights and name histories lead to different results.

Our China trademark search service can help assess proposed wording and goods before an application. A registration search is a separate scope from a full dispute investigation.

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.