Fuhai Chu

BeijingLegal Department

+86-10-6604 6304

+86-10-6641 5678

chufh@ccpit-patent.com.cn

Qualification:

Lawyer's Qualification since 2012

Languages:

Chinese, English and Japanese

Education and Training:

Bachelor of Art in Japanese, Shandong University,2005
Study Japanese in The University of Tokyo, 2007
Master of Art in Japanese, Beijing Foreign Studies University, 2008

Professional Experience:

Trademark Attorney, CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office

 

Practice Area:

With many years of extensive experience in intellectual property legal services both domestically and internationally. Specializes in litigation and non-litigation matters in the fields of trademark rights, copyrights, anti-unfair competition disputes, domain name disputes, IP customs protection, and enterprise name rights protection. Experienced in providing comprehensive IP strategic planning, risk prevention and control, and rights protection solutions for domestic and foreign enterprises. The cases handled span multiple industries including the internet, luxury goods, energy, electrical appliances, optical instruments, industrial machinery, alcoholic beverages, stationery, architectural design, and finance. Has extensive experience and an outstanding track record in domestic and international rights protection and complex IP dispute resolution. Numerous cases handled have been selected as typical cases, drawing significant attention within the industry.

Affiliation:

Member of the Chinese Group of AIPPI;
Senior Professional of the China Trademark Association Talent Pool.

Publication and Presentation:

Publications
"How to Determine an Individual's Infringement of Registered Trademark Rights in Trademark Civil Dispute Cases" (2026)
"On the Nature of the Sales Conduct of Bona Fide Sellers and the Nature of Administrative Compulsory Measures Ordering Cessation of Sales under the Trademark Law" (2024, China Council for the Promotion of International Trade);
"Overview of Recent E-Commerce Laws in Southeast Asian Countries" (2024);
"A Brief Analysis of the Trademark Authorization, Confirmation, and Enforcement Systems in Brazil" (2023);
"How to Prohibit a Later Registered Trademark Owner from Using a Similar Registered Trademark on Identical Goods?" (2023, IPR Daily);
"How to Claim Punitive Damages in Trademark Civil Dispute Cases" (2023, IPR Daily);
"Practice and Characteristics of Top-Level Domain Name Dispute Complaints" (2022, in Chinese and Japanese);
"Three Changes in the Newly Revised 'Regulations on the Administration of Enterprise Name Registration' from the Perspective of Rights Protection" (2021,in Chinese and Japanese);
"Breaking News! According to the Supreme People's Court's Opinions, Same Cases Should Receive Same Judgments, and Similar Cases Should Be Searched (Effective July 31, 2020) | Civil and Commercial Adjudication Rules" (2020);

Presentations
Speaker, November 2021, presentation topic: "Basics of China's IP System, Rights Protection, and Recent Developments," International Business WEB Seminar hosted by the Kyoto Branch of Japan Association for the Promotion of International Trade‌(JAPIT) , and Kyoto Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
‌Interviewee Guest, February 2024, featured in "Not All Deer Head Liqueurs Are Called 'Jägermeister'," a special feature on the Beijing Radio and Television Station (BRTV) program "Civil Code: A Comprehensive Interpretation and Reading";
Speaker, March 2024, presentation topic: "Highlights of the Jägermeister Liqueur Case," at the Annual Conference of the Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC) of China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment;
Speaker, March 2025, presentation topic: "How to Prohibit Infringers from Using Their Registered Trademarks and Apply Punitive Damages Against Them," at IP Economy (Key Case Analysis – Trademark Section / Ten Lawyers Analyze Ten Typical Trademark Cases).

Representative Cases:

 1. 2021–2023, Represented a German liqueur company in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against infringers and obtained a favorable judgment. The court applied punitive damages against the infringer in accordance with the law, with the total damages awarded amounting to RMB 10.15 million.
This case successively received the following six honors:

Beijing Intellectual Property Court's 2023 Top Ten Typical Cases on Curbing Malicious Trademark Registration;
Beijing High People's Court's 2023 Five Typical Cases on Application of Punitive
Damages in IP Infringement Cases;
Beijing High People's Court's 2023 Top Ten Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property;
Beijing Trademark Association's 2023 Top Ten Typical Trademark Litigation Cases;
China Trademark Association's 2022–2023 Typical Trademark Agency Cases;
Beijing Intellectual Property Office's 2023 Typical Cases on Optimizing the Business Environment in the IP Field in Beijing.

2. 2022–2026, Represented a German liqueur company in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against infringers and obtained a favorable judgment. The court applied punitive damages against the infringer in accordance with the law, with the total damages awarded amounting to RMB 10.02 million.

3. 2021–2026, Represented a German liqueur company in a series of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes against infringers (two cases), both resulting in favorable judgments. The total damages awarded in these two cases amounted to RMB 3 million.

4. 2021–2022, Represented a German optical instruments company in a series of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes against infringers (two cases), both resulting in favorable judgments. The total damages awarded in these two cases amounted to RMB 7 million.
These two cases provided valuable exploration and detailed analysis of the conditions for applying punitive damages and the calculation methods, strictly and accurately applying relevant laws and judicial interpretations. At the same time, where punitive damages could not be applied in these cases, the court proactively considered relevant infringing circumstances as factors in determining the amount of damages, effectively protecting the legitimate rights of the registered trademarks, further enriching the theory and practice of punitive damages determination, and providing a good practical model for the adjudication of similar cases. These cases were recognized as typical cases by IP DAILY.

5. 2021–2023, Represented an axle company in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against infringers and obtained a favorable judgment. The damages awarded in this case amounted to RMB 1 million.
In this case, the court ordered the infringer to immediately destroy the infringing goods in inventory, as well as the materials and tools used to manufacture the infringing goods, setting an important reference and example for similar trademark infringement and unfair competition cases.

6. 2023, Represented a US company as defendant in a trademark infringement case. The plaintiff claimed RMB 5 million in damages. After our thorough preparation and non-infringement defense, the plaintiff ultimately withdrew the lawsuit.

7. 2021–2022, Represented a foreign optical instruments company in a series of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes against infringers (two cases), both resulting in favorable judgments.

8. 2017–2022, Represented a Singaporean design company in a series of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes against infringers (four cases), all resulting in favorable judgments.

9. 2021–2022, Represented a Japanese corporation in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against an infringer and obtained a favorable judgment.

10. 2021–2022, Represented a machinery company in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against an infringer. The case ultimately concluded with mediation, achieving a satisfactory result for the client.

11. 2017–2019, Represented an electrical appliance company as defendant in a trademark infringement dispute against an electronics company and obtained a favorable judgment. We prepared sufficient evidence, which the court ultimately accepted, finding that the defendant's manufacturing activities were lawfully authorized production that did not infringe the plaintiff's trademark and that the defendant did not constitute trademark infringement. The court ultimately dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.