Governed by Article 23 of the 2021 Revised Chinese Patent Law, design patents shall not
conflict with prior trademark rights; this rule is a high-risk compliance blind spot for foreign
footwear brands. The landmark PUMA v. Duowei Sports case (SPC Judgment) fully reveals two
core filing defects for overseas applicants: ignoring well-known stripe trademark prior
rights when drafting shoe design drawings and failure to conduct cross-right trademark
-design clearance searches before filing. The domestic enterprise’s shoe design patent
was entirely invalidated, triggering massive e-commerce platform infringement
compensation losses. This case clarifies CNIPA and Supreme People’s Court’s prior right
review standards for industrial designs, and delivers cross-industry IP clearance guidelines for
global sports brands.
Kunshan Duowei Sports filed a design patent (ZL20213008XXXX) for track and field spike
shoes with three parallel side stripes in 2021, and relied on this design to file thousands
of infringement complaints against online retailers. German sportswear giant PUMA filed full
invalidation with the Patent Reexamination Board in 2023, holding that the three-stripe
graphic was its globally famous registered trademark with prior filing date. Two critical defects
in the design application led to complete nullity: First, the three-stripe pattern occupied the
most prominent visual position of the shoe upper, serving as a source-identifying mark rather
than pure decorative design. Under judicial rules, such graphic features must be judged by
trademark confusion standards instead of ordinary design similarity comparison. Second,
Duowei skipped pre-filing cross-right clearance searches covering national trademark
databases, failing to detect PUMA’s decades-old three-stripe prior mark. The Patent
Reexamination Board initially upheld the design, but the Supreme People’s Court reversed the
judgment on appeal, ruling the design conflicted with valid prior trademark rights and issuing
a full invalidation decision. Duowei lost all e-commerce infringement claims and paid over 1.02
million RMB in compensation to multiple platform merchants for malicious rights enforcement.
Prior trademark conflict prohibition clause (Patent Law Article 23). If a design’s distinctive
graphic element acts as a source identifier, examiners and courts adopt trademark likelihood-of-
confusion test, not only overall design visual comparison. Even minor modifications to a well-
known trademark’s core pattern cannot avoid prior right invalidation.
Mandatory cross-right clearance before design filing. Global applicants must simultaneously
retrieve CNIPA trademark database and design database to eliminate conflicting prior trademarks,
logos and copyright works. Separate design-only searches leave huge prior right invalid risks.
No post-filing graphic modification remedy. Once a design application is accepted, applicants
cannot revise core decorative patterns to evade prior trademark conflicts; the only remedy is to
abandon the application and re-file adjusted drawings.
Malicious rights enforcement liability rule. If a patent holder initiates mass infringement litigation
while knowing the design conflicts with prior rights, Chinese courts order full compensation for
the respondent’s operating losses and legal fees.
Hague System special reminder. Foreign brands filing Hague international designs to designate
China must complete China trademark database clearance in advance; WIPO’s search system does
not link CNIPA domestic trademark records.
China’s prior trademark conflict restriction under Article 23 sets strict cross-IP boundary rules for
apparel design filings. This PUMA three-stripe real case fully proves neglect of trademark
pre-search and reuse of famous brand identifying graphics lead to total design patent invalidation
and compensation liabilities. For overseas sports brands launching shoe and apparel product lines,
dual trademark-design clearance searches and differentiated graphic design drafting are irreplaceable
safeguards to eliminate prior right invalid risks.
Hyperlink List：
● SPC Official PUMA Design Trademark Conflict Judgment Announcement:
https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangguan/anli/202603/t20260330_367892.html
● WIPO Lex English 2021 China Patent Law Article 23:
