This article analyses a verified cross-border copyright litigation between a Korean content enterprise and a Chinese trading company. To avoid commercial risks and privacy issues, the original corporate names are replaced anonymously: Korean plaintiff named Alpha Contents Co., Ltd., and Chinese defendant named Beta Trading Co., Ltd. The core dispute focuses on the unauthorized commercial use of cartoon character artworks, reflecting typical difficulties of cross-border copyright enforcement between China and South Korea under the Berne Convention.
Alpha Contents Co., Ltd., a South Korean animation producer, owns complete copyrights of the cartoon character “Amber”, an anthropomorphic ambulance image featured in a well-known children’s animation series. The cartoon artwork qualifies as an original artistic work protected by copyright law of both China and the Republic of Korea, and bilateral protection is guaranteed under the Berne Convention. The company completed copyright registration in South Korea in advance and later conducted supplementary copyright filing in China to facilitate future rights protection. Alpha Contents authorized designated manufacturers to produce peripheral toys, and explicitly prohibited any third party from reproducing, modifying or printing this character on commodity packaging without written licensing.
In 2022, Alpha Contents discovered multiple batches of plastic beach buckets sold in a southern Chinese supermarket carried printed patterns highly similar to the “Amber” character. Further investigation confirmed the supplier was Beta Trading Co., Ltd. The defendant imported blank plastic containers from domestic factories and printed the cartoon pattern without obtaining any copyright license from the Korean rights holder. After collecting evidence including product purchases, notarized photos and sales records, the Korean copyright owner issued a formal cease-and-desist letter to Beta Trading. The Chinese enterprise refused to stop sales and denied infringement, claiming the graphic design was independently created by its design staff and had no connection with the Korean animation character.
In 2023, Alpha Contents filed a civil lawsuit at the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court. One of the greatest obstacles in cross-border copyright lawsuits is burden of proof: the plaintiff must prove copyright ownership, the originality of the work, substantial similarity between two images, and the defendant’s commercial use behaviour. The plaintiff submitted Korean copyright registration certificates, animation original design manuscripts, official broadcasting materials and notarized comparison reports. The defendant only provided simple hand-drawn drafts without complete creation records, and could not explain the coincidental consistency of core features including facial layout, body proportion and colour matching.
The first-instance court initially ruled against the plaintiff. The judge held that the commodity decoration lacked the deformation function of the original animation character, so overall visual expression had obvious differences. Alpha Contents lodged an appeal. On second instance, the appellate court revised the judgment and confirmed copyright infringement. Chinese courts adopt the “substantial similarity plus access” standard for copyright infringement identification. Functional characteristics of derivative products cannot be used to exclude infringement determination of artistic graphics. The court emphasized that copyright protects unique creative expression rather than product functions. After visual comparison, the printed pattern on the beach bucket copied the core creative elements of “Amber”, reaching substantial similarity. The defendant had access to the animation work which had been publicly released in China for years, forming a complete infringement evidence chain.
The final judgment ordered Beta Trading Co., Ltd. to immediately stop manufacturing and selling all commodities carrying the infringing cartoon pattern. The court awarded economic compensation of RMB 28,000 plus reasonable expenses for rights protection, including notarization fees, attorney fees and cross-border evidence translation costs. When calculating compensation, the judge considered the popularity of the cartoon work, the scale of infringing sales, the subjective fault of the defendant, and the international nature of this copyright dispute. The defendant did not file further appeal, and the judgment took legal effect.
This case delivers vital enlightenment for international copyright operators. Filing copyright registration in both source country and target sales territory greatly simplifies ownership proof during litigation. Many overseas creators ignore registration procedures in China, leading to difficulties in quickly presenting effective ownership evidence when infringement occurs. Meanwhile, rights holders shall carry out regular market monitoring and complete notarized evidence preservation at the earliest stage once pirated goods are discovered. Oral warnings often fail to restrain infringers; standardized written cease-and-desist letters can be used as evidence of the infringer’s subjective malice in subsequent litigation.
Another critical lesson involves unauthorized distributors. Wholesalers and trading enterprises cannot evade liability simply by claiming they purchased goods from unknown suppliers. Business operators bear reasonable obligation to verify intellectual property authorization of commodities they sell. If a trader fails to request formal licensing documents from upstream suppliers, courts will usually identify subjective negligence and confirm joint infringement liability. Distributors should establish supplier IP review mechanisms to avoid participating in cross-border copyright disputes.
Regarding judicial jurisdiction and applicable law, cross-border copyright disputes follow the principle of lex loci protectionis. When infringement occurs within Chinese territory, Chinese courts apply the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China for trial, while the Berne Convention guarantees equal treatment for foreign copyright owners. Korean enterprises do not need to establish local subsidiaries to initiate litigation in China; they can appoint Chinese law firms as representatives. Nevertheless, cross-border document authentication, translation and evidence exchange will prolong the whole litigation cycle, which usually lasts 12 to 18 months for two-instance trials.
In recent years, China and South Korea have strengthened judicial cooperation on intellectual property. However, malicious unauthorized use of Korean K-content, cartoon images and music works still emerges frequently on e-commerce platforms. Global copyright owners need to combine administrative complaints, civil litigation and customs recordation to build multi-layer protection mechanisms. Early layout of copyright registration, market surveillance and standardized licensing agreements remains the most effective way to reduce cross-border infringement risks.
Four valid authoritative hyperlinks:
1. WIPO Berne Convention Full Text: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698
2. Korea Copyright Commission Official English Website: https://www.copyright.or.kr/english/main.do
3. China Supreme People’s Court IP Judicial Interpretations: https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-321041.html
4. Mondaq Cross-border Copyright Dispute Analysis (China & South Korea): https://www.mondaq.com/china/copyright/1757110/copyright-infringement-dispute-between-a-korean-company-and-a-chinese-trading-company
