Z-standard

Z-standard Protect your innovation and inspiration!

Founded in 2012, z-standard IPR is a professional team dedicated to the full realization of intellectual property rights (IPR) value through a holistic and multi-pronged approach, encompassing IPR application, authorization, and litigation-based rights protection and enforcement. The team is fully equipped with qualifications including a lawyer's practice license (License No.: 23301201810018639),

patent agency certification (Patent Agency Code: 33371), and trademark/copyright agency credentials. z-standard IPR boasts a wealth of successful cases, with exceptional expertise in providing consultation and advice during the application phase, diligent follow-up and management throughout the procedural stages, and effective rights protection and litigation services post-authorization. This has led the majority of clients to ultimately choose z-standard IPR as their trusted partner in the realm of intellectual property.

20/01/2026

Title: China: Lawyer Unveils – These Trademark Intent-to-Use Evidences Are Futile!

A netizen asked: I submitted so much evidence of use, so why was my trademark still rejected on the grounds of lack of intent to use?

First, Lawyer Joss Wang provides the answer: In fact, the trademark office has long established a list of completely ineffective evidence, and many applicants fall into this trap unknowingly.

So, what types of evidence are entirely useless?

First, unclear purpose. For example: You are applying for a cosmetics trademark, and to prove intent to use, you provide recruitment contracts and interview records. However, these contracts and records have no connection to the trademark you applied for.

Second, irrelevant products. For example: You apply for a clothing trademark, but the evidence you submit is related to fertilizers.

Third, symbolic use. For example: After a trademark for daily necessities is rejected, you custom-produce a batch of cups with the logo for the sake of the case, but there is no sales record, invoice, or related evidence.

Fourth, indistinguishable evidence. For example: You apply for a toy trademark and provide photos from a promotional event. Although the trademark is visible in the photos, the toys themselves are not shown.

Lawyer Joss Wang reminds: If the evidence you submit is unrelated to your trademark or the specified goods/services, it is essentially futile. Evidence must be closely tied to the trademark and the designated products; otherwise, it cannot rescue your trademark.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property legal knowledge.

The above views are based on Chinese law.

19/01/2026

Title: China: Software Project Stalled Midway — Who is Responsible? Insights from This Case.

A netizen asked: My company signed a software development contract, but the project became deadlocked during ex*****on, with both sides blaming each other. In such a situation, who should be deemed in breach of contract?

First, Lawyer Joss Wang provides the answer: This scenario is quite common in software development. When progress stalls, both parties often share some degree of fault.

Why is that? Let’s examine a real case from the Beijing region.

The plaintiff commissioned the defendant to develop a software system, but the project experienced severe delays. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s failure to deliver on time constituted a fundamental breach of contract, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff’s insufficient cooperation and organizational changes prevented the software development scope from being finalized.

What was the outcome?

The first-instance ruling found that the plaintiff, as the end-user, had not cooperated actively enough and bore responsibility for the project delays. Meanwhile, the defendant, as the professional developer, had insufficiently anticipated the project’s complexity, with preliminary work taking far longer than expected, and thus also bore corresponding responsibility.

Ultimately, the court ruled that both parties were in breach of contract. The contract was terminated, and the defendant was ordered to refund a portion of the development fees to the plaintiff.

Lawyer Joss Wang reminds: When a software project stalls, it is rarely solely one party’s fault. Before signing a contract, clearly define requirements, phased objectives, and cooperation mechanisms. During contract performance, enhance communication and retain evidence. If a deadlock occurs, promptly seek legal means to delineate responsibilities and minimize losses.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property legal knowledge.

The above views are based on Chinese law.

16/01/2026

Title: China: Is the Platform Liable for Seller Infringement? Lawyer Explains These Two Key Situations!

A netizen asked: I am an original illustrator. Every time I sue over infringement and piracy on platforms, the platform itself is not held responsible. How can I make the platform pay compensation as well?

First, Lawyer Joss Wang gives the answer: For a platform to be held liable, the key is to prove that the platform "knew or should have known" about the infringing activity but failed to take timely action.

Why is that? Let me share a real case from the Shandong region.

The plaintiff owned the copyright to a certain book, while the defendant, Deng, sold pirated copies of the book on the Pinduoduo platform. The first-instance ruling ordered Deng to pay compensation, but the platform was not held liable. The plaintiff appealed and presented evidence proving that they had sent lawyer's letters to the Pinduoduo platform seven times, explicitly notifying them that the company behind the store had been deregistered and that infringement proceedings had been initiated. However, the platform only took down the pirated books a year and a half later.

What was the outcome?

The second-instance ruling determined that the platform has an obligation to regularly verify merchant information. Pinduoduo, despite receiving multiple explicit warnings and being aware that the store’s entity had been deregistered, still failed to take action. This constituted "should have known" about the infringement but chose to ignore it, thus requiring the platform to bear liability for compensation.

Lawyer Joss Wang reminds: If a platform fails to fulfill its obligation to regularly review merchants or remains inactive despite being repeatedly notified of infringement, it falls under the category of "should have known" about the infringement but neglected to act, thereby incurring liability for compensation.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property law knowledge.

The above views are based on Chinese law.

15/01/2026

公司申请商标太多总驳回？这份“使用意图证据清单”帮你翻盘！
#商标驳回复审 #商标使用证据 #商标律师 #商标申请 : China: Too Many Trademark Applications Rejected? This "Evidence of Intent to Use" Checklist Can Help You Turn the Tide!

A netizen asked: Our trademark was rejected again, citing that our company has filed too many trademark applications and requesting proof of use. However, we haven't started using it yet. What should we do?

First, Lawyer Joss Wang gives the answer: You can provide "evidence of intent to use" to prove your plan to use the trademark, as long as it demonstrates that you have already undertaken specific and actionable preparations for its use.

Below is an example using a software company’s trademark application to illustrate what types of evidence can be used:

First, software system development cycle diagrams, functional design specifications, and product prototype testing records, proving that the product is already under development.

Second, the disclosed reserve product plans in annual financial reports and internal product naming approval process documents, proving that the product is in the planning stage.

Third, signed letters of intent with distributors, email correspondence, and meeting minutes, proving that sales preparations are underway for the product.

Fourth, signed product promotion plan contracts with advertising agencies, proving that promotional activities for the product are about to begin.

The above are common and effective types of evidence recognized by the trademark office, significantly increasing the success rate of your trademark registration.

Lawyer Joss Wang reminds: To prove intent to use a trademark, empty claims are not enough. It must be supported by solid evidence, including materials related to product development, business plans, promotional preparations, distributor agreements, and more.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property law knowledge.

The above views are based on Chinese law.

14/01/2026

Title: China: Trademark Rejected for "Not for Use Purpose"? Here's How to Save It!

A netizen asked: My trademark application was rejected. The examiner said it was not for practical use purposes. How did they know?

First, Lawyer Joss Wang gives the answer: Actually, they inferred it based on big data of enterprises—essentially, they guessed. But don’t panic. If you have evidence, you can still obtain the trademark you want through a trademark rejection review.

Why is that? Let me share a real case.

Company A’s trademark application was rejected on the grounds of "not for use purpose." Company A disagreed and applied for a trademark review, providing the following evidence:

First, the company’s annual reports, tax records, and social security payment records to prove stable operations.

Second, a business matrix diagram illustrating that the trademark layout is closely related to its core business.

Third, evidence of use and promotion, such as product promotional pages on e-commerce platforms and industry media reports, proving the trademark had been put into actual use or was ready for use.

Ultimately, the trademark office successfully approved Company A’s trademark registration.

Lawyer Joss Wang reminds: Trademark registration now increasingly emphasizes actual use. If your trademark is rejected for "not for actual use purpose," carefully examine whether you have made preparations for using the trademark. As long as you can prove genuine intent to use or an actual business foundation, success is possible.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property law knowledge.

The above views are based on Chinese law.

13/01/2026

Title: What to Do When Your Patent Is Infringed, But a Local Chinese Intellectual Property Office Says It Isn’t? A Lawyer’s Guide

A common question from netizens: If an administrative authority has already determined that there is no patent infringement, does that mean the rights holder must give up on enforcement?

Joss Wang, an intellectual property attorney, gives a clear answer: No. Even if an administrative body issues a ruling of “no infringement,” the patent owner can still file an administrative lawsuit to seek judicial review and potentially overturn that decision.

Why is this possible? Consider a real case from Jinan, China. The plaintiff was the holder of an invention patent for a “sliding rail track strip.” Suspecting infringement, they filed a complaint with the local intellectual property office. After investigation, the office concluded that the defendant’s product differed from the patented invention and issued an administrative ruling of non-infringement.

Unsatisfied with this outcome, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the ruling.

What was the result? In the first-instance judgment, the court found that the defendant’s product contained all the technical features defined in the plaintiff’s patent claims, thereby falling within the scope of patent protection. Consequently, the court revoked the original administrative decision and ordered the authority to issue a new ruling.

Joss Wang emphasizes: This case illustrates the judiciary’s supervisory and corrective role over administrative enforcement in China. An administrative determination is not the end of the road for rights holders. If dissatisfied with such a ruling, patent owners should proactively pursue administrative litigation to trigger judicial review and safeguard their legitimate rights.

Moreover, while this particular case did not directly award monetary damages, it laid a crucial foundation for subsequent civil infringement proceedings.

Follow me for more insights into Chinese intellectual property law.

The above analysis is based on Chinese law.

12/01/2026

**Title: In China, What If Infringers Refuse to Provide Evidence? Lawyer Explains the Hindrance of Proof System**



A netizen asked: "In intellectual property infringement cases, what should be done if the defendant intentionally refuses to provide infringement evidence, making losses difficult to calculate?"

**Joss Wang's answer:** This behavior is highly inadvisable. Intentionally refusing to provide evidence to obstruct the proceedings may be worse than simply not appearing in court.

Let me share a real case from Wenzhou. The plaintiff alleged that software developed by the defendant illegally obtained its encrypted "receiving information," constituting infringement, and filed a lawsuit. During the trial, it was established that the "receiving information" constituted trade secrets and should be protected. When calculating damages, the adjudicating personnel required the defendant to provide relevant data, but the defendant only provided a brief explanation, and later even became uncontactable and refused to appear in court.

What was the result? The first-instance court determined that the defendant's passive evidence presentation constituted hindrance of proof. Therefore, based on the plaintiff's claimed data and after reasonable adjustments, the court inferred the infringement profits and ultimately ordered the defendant to immediately delete the information and pay the plaintiff 806,000 RMB in damages.

**Joss Wang's reminder:** When the plaintiff has done their best to provide evidence, if the defendant who holds key evidence refuses to provide it without justifiable reasons, this behavior may constitute hindrance of proof. In such cases, the court generally tends to award higher damages, with the purpose of preventing the defendant from benefiting from concealing evidence.

Follow us to learn more about intellectual property law knowledge.

**Important: The above perspectives are based on Chinese law.**

09/01/2026

**Title: In China, Taking Technical Drawings When Leaving Your Job? Beware: You May Face Jail Time and Millions in Damages! Lawyer Analyzes Real Case**



A netizen asked: "I'm an engineer planning to jump to a competitor. Can I still use my original company's technology?"

**Joss Wang's answer:** You must avoid using confidential technology from your original company.

Why? Let me share a real case from Qingdao. After leaving the plaintiff company, technical personnel took the plaintiff's unpublished technology to the defendant company for use. The defendant company, knowing it was someone else's trade secret, still directed the technical staff to use it. Even worse, they used the plaintiff's technology to apply for patents.

What was the result? The first-instance court determined that the above technologies were trade secrets, and the defendant's actions constituted infringement. Although these defendants had already received criminal punishment for the crime of trade secret infringement, criminal liability and civil liability are two separate matters. This means that even after serving jail time, they still had to pay compensation. The court ultimately ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 4 million RMB in economic damages. The defendant refused to accept and appealed, but the second-instance result remained unchanged.

**Joss Wang's reminder:** Technical personnel should strictly adhere to professional ethics and confidentiality obligations. After leaving a company, they must not unauthorizedly use or disclose the former employer's technical information; otherwise, they may face "dual criminal and civil penalties." Companies should also improve internal confidentiality systems to prevent technology leaks and immediately protect their rights upon discovery of any leakage.

Follow us to learn more about intellectual property law knowledge.

**Important: The above perspectives are based on Chinese law.**

08/01/2026

**Title: Clothing Designs Copied in China? Don't Wait! Lawyer Teaches You One Trick to Stop Infringement Immediately**



A netizen asked: "A competitor copied my T-shirt with the exact same pattern. How can I protect my rights?"

**Joss Wang's answer:** Claiming copyright infringement is the basic approach, but to quickly resolve infringing products, priority should be given to initiating pre-litigation behavior preservation procedures.

Why? Let me share a real case from Huzhou. The plaintiff owned the copyright to the artwork "Colorful Carp Exploring Spring," primarily used on winter New Year clothing. The defendant, without authorization, produced and sold clothing with the same pattern on multiple e-commerce platforms. Considering the extremely short sales cycle for New Year clothing, the plaintiff applied to the court for pre-litigation behavior preservation.

What was the result? The adjudicating officers determined that the pattern on the defendant's clothing was highly similar to the plaintiff's work, constituting alleged infringement. Given the obvious seasonal nature of this clothing, failure to stop it immediately would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant must immediately cease production and sales of the infringing clothing, and supervised the removal of infringing product links from 13 online stores.

**Joss Wang's reminder:** If your copyrighted work is being infringed upon for seasonal goods, don't wait for the lengthy litigation process—pre-litigation behavior preservation can help you quickly press the "infringement pause button," preserve evidence, curb losses, and gain the initiative for subsequent rights protection.

Follow us to learn more about intellectual property law knowledge.

**Important: The above perspectives are based on Chinese law.**

07/01/2026

**Title: Patent Enforcement in China: Combating "Behemoth" Infringing Equipment through Evidence Preservation**



A netizen asked: "Our equipment is patented, but competitors have copied our product. We can't access their factory, and the equipment is so massive that we can't purchase or transport it to court. Is rights enforcement still possible?"

**Joss Wang's answer:** Absolutely. You can apply for judicial evidence preservation in such situations.

Here's why: Let me share a real case from Qingdao. The plaintiff, an oil equipment company, owned a patent for a large petroleum device. They discovered that the defendant company in Xinjiang was producing and selling potentially infringing equipment. However, the equipment was gigantic and immobile. Videos taken by the plaintiff themselves couldn't clearly show the full device. Facing likely defeat, what could they do?

Prompted by the trial personnel, they applied for judicial evidence preservation. After approval, judicial officers traveled to Xinjiang to conduct comprehensive video documentation of the behemoth device, using blockchain technology to preserve the evidence. Ultimately, the first-instance court ruled the device identical to the plaintiff's patent, ordering the defendant to cease infringement immediately and pay economic damages.

**Joss Wang's reminder:** When facing large equipment infringement, never abandon rights protection due to evidence collection difficulties. Actively utilize the evidence preservation system combined with modern technology. No matter how large the equipment, patents can be effectively protected!

Follow us for more intellectual property law knowledge.

**Important: The above perspectives are based on Chinese law.**

06/01/2026

Title: China: Who Owns the Patent After an Employee Leaves? The Key Is This 1-Year Period! Lawyer Analyzes Real Case



A netizen asked: After an employee leaves, they use technology developed at our company to apply for a patent. What should we do?

Joss Wang gives the answer first: If the patented technology is related to their work, and the patent application was filed within one year of resignation, then the patent can legally be reclaimed.

Let me share a real case from Ningbo. Individuals A and B previously worked at the plaintiff's company, then left to join the defendant company (a competitor). While employed at the defendant company, A and B applied for patents in the defendant company's name. The plaintiff, upon learning this, was furious and sued to confirm patent ownership.

What was the outcome? The first-instance court determined that A and B had served as general manager and deputy R&D director at the plaintiff's company, deeply involved in project development. The patents applied for by the defendant company listed A and B as inventors, and the patented technology was highly relevant to the plaintiff's projects. Additionally, the relevant patents were applied for within one year of A and B's resignation. The court ultimately ruled these were employee inventions and should belong to the plaintiff.

Joss Wang reminds: According to the Patent Law, inventions created within one year after an employee's resignation that are related to the former unit's work tasks belong to the former unit. If your company encounters such issues, be sure to retain R&D records, labor contracts, resignation certificates, communication records, and other materials, and protect your rights promptly.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property legal knowledge.

*The above views are based on Chinese law.*

05/01/2026

Title: China: Copying Others' Trademarks and Shirking Responsibility? Playing Dead in Infringement Costs Dearly, Compensation Multiplies 7 Times on Appeal!



A netizen asked: We sued a defendant for infringement, but they either cause unreasonable trouble, shirk responsibility, or simply play dead (ignore the lawsuit). What should we do?

Joss Wang gives the answer first: During litigation, emphasize the defendant's bad attitude, then calmly wait for the outcome.

Why? Let me share a real case from Henan Province. The plaintiff has operated a same-city courier service since 2015, owning the "UU跑腿" brand. The defendant had been sued once before but continued infringing. The company's actual controller even registered multiple companies, using logos with similar pronunciation and design to the plaintiff's brand across various platforms to conduct the same business. The plaintiff sued again.

The first-instance court ordered the defendant to stop infringement and pay 200,000 yuan in compensation.

The second-instance court, considering the defendant's continuous infringement and denial of facts during litigation—showing obvious subjective malice—and to uphold legal authority, increased the compensation to 1.5 million yuan for economic losses.

Joss Wang reminds: In IP infringement cases, when a defendant knowingly continues infringement and denies facts, it demonstrates high subjective malice, which can lead to significantly increased compensation. "Playing-dead-style infringement" only results in higher damages.

Follow me to learn more about intellectual property legal knowledge.

*The above views are based on Chinese law.*

Address

4F, Tower G, CHINA（HANGZHOU）INTELLIGENT INFORMATION INDUSTRIAL PARK
Hangzhou
310015

Opening Hours

Monday 08:30 - 17:30
Tuesday 08:30 - 17:30
Wednesday 08:30 - 17:30
Thursday 08:30 - 17:30
Friday 08:30 - 17:30

Telephone

+8615306593644

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Z-standard posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Z-standard:

Shortcuts

Share

Category