Introduction

Late at night in the lobby of an esports-themed hotel, neon lights illuminate a striking poster of a famous game. Inside, the computers are preloaded with pirated versions of the game, and the drink menu features the “Games’ Limited Edition Energy Drink." This venue is not an officially authorized location for the brand, but rather a textbook example of "cross-industry parasitic" trademark infringement.

A reputable gaming company (with trademarks registered under Class 9 for computer software and Class 42 for online gaming) recently discovered that numerous esports-themed commercial establishments have been misappropriating its visual assets and brand logos to attract customers. These venues promote themselves and drive traffic through various online platforms, generating profits in the process. However, when the company filed complaints with these platforms, they were repeatedly rejected on the grounds that "the accused party’s business category does not match the registered trademark classes."

This situation highlights a common challenge in trademark enforcement: despite clear evidence of infringement, complaints often fail due to discrepancies between the trademark's registered classes and the actual use case.

Practical Challenges 

Currently, "borderline" infringement is becoming increasingly rampant, characterized by three significant features:

1. Cross-Industry Scenarios: Infringement spreads from gaming arcades to cafes, escape rooms, and other non-traditional venues.
2. Concealed Infringement: Utilizing "homophones + element combinations" to create legal gray areas.
3. Platform Fragmentation: Infringing content appears simultaneously on major platforms like Meituan, Douyin, and WeChat.

The core of conventional trademark infringement complaints is "precise class matching." For instance, if a clothing brand (with trademarks registered under Class 25 for "clothing, footwear, headgear") discovers counterfeit T-shirts on an e-commerce platform, it can simply submit the Class 25 trademark registration certificate along with screenshots of the infringing product pages for the platform to quickly determine infringement

However, this approach has clear limitations. When the infringement scenario does not align with the trademark's registered class, platforms may deem the "product/service class unrelated," leading to complaint rejections (as seen in the aforementioned case of the gaming brand's complaint against the esports hotel).

Breakthrough Complaint Strategy: Building a Multi-Dimensional Evidence Chain

1. Three Innovative Dimensions for Similarity Argumentation

1) Comparison of Visual and Auditory Elements: From “Static Trademark” to “Dynamic Scene” Infringement Identification
Using the example of a gaming brand in the context of esports hotel infringement:

• Visual Comparison: Capture images of the infringing venue’s trademark usage (e.g., signage, decorations) and perform a "pixel-level breakdown" against the original trademark.
• Scene Relevance: Analyzing User Review Keywords on Dianping: By locating keywords in user reviews on platforms like Dianping (e.g., "officially licensed," "official partnership"), evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the infringing party intentionally misled consumers into mistaken recognition.

2) Consumer Confusion

• Trademark Recognition: Provide evidence of the trademark's prominence, such as the game's user base (e.g., over 50 million registered players), industry report rankings (e.g., top 3 market share), and official collaboration cases (e.g., co-branding with well-known hardware brands).
• Bad Faith Evidence : Extract false statements from the infringing party's promotional materials, such as "Official Experience Store for XX Game" or "Officially Licensed."
• Instances of Consumer Confusion: Collect screenshots of user inquiries on platforms like Dianping (e.g., "Is this store operated by the game company?") to demonstrate actual instances of confusion.

3) Contextual Big Data Support

• Use public opinion analysis tools (e.g., Xinhua or NewRank) to analyze the correlation between the infringing trademark and venue type (e.g., "XX Game + Esports Hotel" with a monthly search volume exceeding 20,000). This demonstrates that the infringement has already diverted brand traffic.
• Generate a keyword cloud to highlight misleading high-frequency terms such as "official," "authentic," and "licensed," reinforcing the platform's understanding of the "likelihood of confusion."

2. Efficient Techniques for Collecting Bad Faith Evidence of Malicious Intent

1) Establishing a Timeline

Retrieve the infringer's establishment date from the corporate information disclosure system (showing it was founded three years after the trademark gained recognition) to demonstrate the intent to "free-ride."

Capture early content from the infringer's account (e.g., partial use of the trademark six months ago, followed by widespread misuse) to reveal the escalation of infringement.

2) “Collateral Punishment" for Matrix Accounts 

By following the guidance provided by infringing accounts and using tools like Tianyancha to investigate associated relationships, establish that multiple infringing stores or accounts are controlled by the same legal entity. Cite the platform's "enhanced penalties for repeated infringement" policy to push for the mass suspension of these accounts.

3) Collecting User Testimonials as Evidence

Content Direction: Filter negative reviews containing keywords such as "thought it was the official store" or "was deceived."
Evidence Preservation: Secure evidence of infringing pages and user comments by using timestamps for documentation.

3. Template-Based Solutions for Similar Cases

1）Judicial Precedent "Element Transplantation"

Incorporate opposition or invalidation decisions from similar cases and relevant court judgments directly into the complaint materials.

2) Standardized Toolkit for Cost Reduction and Efficiency

• Provide a list of "Infringement Complaint Materials" for each platform.
• Maintain a template library for complaint letters across various platforms.

4. Multi-Platform Comprehensive Complaint Strategy.

Given that many infringing entities operate accounts across multiple platforms, we conduct a thorough analysis of all platform accounts to identify key entry points, aiming to achieve a complete cleanup across all platforms.

Platform-Specific Defense and Attack Guide for Precise Trademark Enforcement

Different internet platforms have unique operating rules and review mechanisms, making it essential to develop targeted complaint strategies. Below, we outline key complaint points and practical techniques for common platforms such as WeChat Official Accounts, Video Accounts, TikTok, and Dianping.

1. Weichat Account/Mini Program

1) Complaint Submission Portal: Log in to the desktop version at “https://mp.weixin.qq.com/” → Click on the “Infringement Complaint” tab at the bottom of the page.

(2) Review Preferences and Response Strategies: The WeChat platform has strict formal review standards for complaint materials. You need to prepare complete documentation, including proof of entity qualification and POA. For foreign entities, these documents must also be notarized and authenticated. When submitting a complaint, ensure that all materials are complete and formatted meticulously.

The WeChat platform offers a variety of complaint categories, providing flexibility to choose the most appropriate option based on actual needs. The platform also provides guidance on the required materials and reasons for each type of complaint.

3) Platform Advantages: WeChat Official Accounts and Mini Programs impose strict penalties for verified infringement cases. If severe or repeated infringement is detected, the platform often takes action by removing the infringing account. As a result, complaints filed on this platform tend to have a more thorough and effective resolution.

2. WeChat Channels Account

1) Complaint Submission Portal: Click the “···” icon at the top right corner of the WeChat Channels Account → Select “Report” → “Infringement” → “Intellectual Property Infringement” → “Trademark Rights.”

2) Review Preferences and Strategies: Compared to the strict PC-based complaint process for WeChat Official Accounts/Mini Programs, infringement reports for WeChat Channels Account can be handled directly via the mobile app. Although the platform’s formal review is relatively lenient (not requiring notarized documents or other mandatory files), it is still recommended to upload a comprehensive complaint letter. This should detail the infringement facts, the basis of your rights, and include supporting materials such as comparison images and prior cases to enhance the likelihood of a successful complaint.

3. Douyin/Douyin E-Commerce

1) Dual-Channel Complaint Strategy

Content Infringement Channel: For trademark usage in short videos or related accounts, press and hold the video within the app → Select “Report” → “Intellectual Property Infringement” → “Trademark Rights.”

E-commerce Infringement Channel: For infringing trademark usage in stores or on products, log in to the Douyin E-Commerce Intellectual Property Protection Platform: https://ippro.bytedance.com.

2) Review Preferences and Strategies

Compared to the WeChat platform, Douyin adopts a more lenient approach to the formal review of complaint materials, focusing more on the substantive connection between the usage scenario and trademark rights. Therefore, in cases involving infringement across multiple platforms, Douyin can be prioritized as the breakthrough point.

However, it is important to note that the Douyin platform is prone to frequent and repeated infringement. After a successful initial complaint, we recommend setting up dynamic monitoring of the involved account for a certain period. If the same entity reuses the infringing trademark or similar identifiers, you can report it to the platform again and request stricter penalties.

3) Platform Advantages

As the most active traffic hub for users today, many infringing entities prefer using the Douyin platform to redirect potential customers to other platforms. This "Douyin Traffic Redirection + Multi-Platform Monetization" infringement model makes Douyin a critical interception point for brand protection.

To address this situation, we recommend adopting a "Douyin First Complaint + Cross-Platform Coordination" strategy: leverage Douyin's flexible review mechanism to use it as the initial breakthrough point for rights protection. Once an infringement determination is obtained from Douyin, it can serve as valid prior evidence for submitting cross-platform complaints to platforms like WeChat. This creates a "single-platform determination driving full-channel governance" leverage effect for trademark protection.

4. Dianping/Meituan

1) Dianping and Meituan share the same complaint portal: https://ipr.meituan.com/ . When filing a complaint, you can achieve takedown on both platforms simultaneously through a single submission.

2) Review Preferences and Strategies

Dianping/Meituan has stringent requirements for infringement materials and typically demands that the specific usage scenario aligns with the registered trademark class. Therefore, when filing a complaint on this platform, we recommend submitting a detailed complaint letter that lists the target's bad faith and compares infringing marks, along with evidence of outcomes from other platforms as supporting documentation.

3) Platform Advantages: Although the platform only addresses trademark usage in online store names and detail pages, the initial penalty of a 7-14 day takedown can lead to significant order loss for small and medium-sized businesses reliant on platform traffic. Therefore, we recommend leveraging the "online penalty to drive offline rectification" strategy. Use this period to negotiate with the infringing party, pressuring them to change various decorations in their offline stores.

Conclusion

In the digital economy, trademark infringement is characterized by cross-scenario occurrences, concealed methods, and dispersed platforms. A systematic rights protection strategy requires the integration of platform rule comprehension, evidence dimension design, and innovative application of legal frameworks.