The New Balance Chinese-name dispute demonstrates why a well-known English brand must clear its Chinese wording separately. It also demonstrates how a large first-instance damages headline can obscure the appellate result.

This article concerns the Chinese-word trademark infringement case brought by Zhou Lelun against New Balance's China affiliate, reviewed on appeal in 2016. It is not a summary of every later New Balance dispute over the N device, shoe decoration or other brands. MY CNTM was not a representative in these proceedings; the analysis is based on public judicial sources.

The claim concerned 百伦 and 新百伦

The dispute concerned the claimant's registered Chinese marks 百伦 and 新百伦, and the defendant's use of 新百伦 in selling and promoting products. The Guangdong court's account treats that use as identifying the source of goods, rather than dismissing it merely as use of a company name or translation.

The case also involved reverse confusion: a commercially powerful later user can cause the public to associate an earlier owner's mark with that later user. Confusion analysis therefore need not be limited to a small trader pretending to be a larger brand. The Guangdong High People's Court's 2016 IP protection white paper discusses this dispute and its significance.

The damages changed on appeal

The first-instance court awarded RMB 98 million. On appeal, the award against New Balance's China affiliate was reduced to RMB 5 million, including reasonable enforcement expenses. The appellate result maintained the infringement finding; a reduction in damages was not a finding that the challenged use was lawful.

The court's account explains that the defendant's entire business profit could not simply be attributed to use of the disputed Chinese marks. Read the court's account of the appellate decision alongside the Guangdong High People's Court white paper. The latter also records the change from 98 million to 5 million.

These figures are civil damages and expenses, not a government filing fee, administrative fine or payment for purchasing the mark. Nor should the first-instance award be presented as the final appellate award.

Why an English brand registration does not settle the Chinese wording

The commercial lesson is to investigate the exact name used in the local market. A clearance exercise limited to NEW BALANCE would not answer every question about 新百伦, 百伦, their pronunciations or their use on the relevant goods.

This does not mean English and Chinese marks can never conflict. They may, depending on similarity and the evidence. It means a foreign registration, a company name and a chosen Chinese product label are different parts of the analysis. See our guides to China trademark searches and English–Chinese similarity.

If the business intends to use Chinese characters prominently in a storefront, product description, advertisement or packaging, treat them as a clearance priority. Do not assume adding the English mark beside the characters necessarily removes the risk.

Read this case alongside Jordan, without merging the legal issues

In the Jordan/乔丹 case, the Supreme People's Court addressed a natural person's prior name right in administrative trademark proceedings. Here, the focus was a civil claim based on registered Chinese trademarks and commercial use.

Neither case supports the blanket statement that the foreign brand always wins, or always loses, in China. The appropriate right, disputed sign, evidence, procedure and relief must be identified separately. A news article about another New Balance victory cannot be substituted for the result in this particular Chinese-word case.

A practical Chinese-name clearance file

Before authorising a launch, assemble:

  • The exact English word mark, proposed Chinese name, logo and combined versions.
  • The products and services for which each sign will be used, with proposed Chinese specifications.
  • Search results and current status records for potentially conflicting marks.
  • A dated account of any earlier use, publicity or other rights on which the business may rely.
  • Instructions controlling how distributors and marketing teams may introduce Chinese names.

These are our planning recommendations, not a reconstruction of the parties' evidence bundles. Where a conflict is found, assess alternatives, possible negotiations and any properly supported challenge before expanding use. A pending challenge to another person's registration should not be treated as automatic permission to use the sign.

Our Chinese-brand naming guide and China–US comparison explain how to incorporate this work into the filing plan.

Keep the remedy and budget specific

A registration search, a trademark application, a challenge to a registered right and civil infringement litigation are different instructions. Request advice and a quote for the actual stage, including the relevant marks, classes, evidence and forum. Do not equate a website's standard application price with the cost of defending an infringement action.

For our subsequent filing services, fees are charged per trademark, per class, including multiple classes under one number; they do not depend on the number of goods or services items. Dispute work outside a standard package needs an agreed written scope. See services and pricing, or send the proposed Chinese name for a search.

Successful protection of international brands in China

For a balanced comparison, read LAFITE’s successful action against deliberate imitation and Michelin’s protection of an established Chinese translation. These decisions show substantive protection for overseas rights holders on the facts and evidence of those cases. Our 2026 deceptive-trademark-use update explains the separate administrative work to protect consumers and fair competition.

Judicial sources and scope

Sources checked on 25 October 2026. This historical case note does not claim to determine the present status of every relevant mark, settlement or later proceeding.