Adidas / Shoe Uppers in China: An Unfinished Component Is Not a Finished Shoe

Case at a glance

Selected dispute

Components & damages

Brand / case

Adidas / Shoe Uppers

Historical scope

(2020)浙03民终161 · Wenzhou appeal

Evidence

[PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Editorial status

Independent research; professional review pending

The specific rights

The selected case concerns infringing shoe uppers and repeated seizures described in the official summary. It is not a finding about all plain footwear components, designs or manufacturing arrangements. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Historical references only. No current registration snapshot is included; no present-day status or complete portfolio is asserted.

Selected timeline

1. 2015–2017Enforcement history

   The summary records three seizures involving more than 17,000 uppers overall. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

2. Selected third seizureCalculation input

   The calculation used 6,050 units from that seizure, not the aggregate as an interchangeable quantity. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

3. 2020 case referenceWenzhou appeal

   The reported award was RMB 1,037,337.84 after the component adjustment and three-times calculation. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

4. 15 March 2021Official summary published

   The SPC later included the dispute in its typical-case collection. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Dates belong to the events shown. Source publication and access dates appear separately below.

What the sources actually establish

The summary uses a finished-shoe price and margin, then a 40% deduction to reflect unfinished uppers. The stated base of RMB 345,779.28 was multiplied by three. The adjustment is specific evidence-based reasoning in this dispute, not a standard 40% discount for every component. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Define the unit before doing arithmetic

A stock count may refer to individual pieces, pairs, cartons or finished products. Write the unit beside every quantity and identify who counted it. If the file includes several seizures, do not combine them until their product types and time periods have been reconciled. A clean spreadsheet can still produce a misleading answer when the underlying units differ.

Photograph and describe the physical state of the goods. Note which manufacturing steps remain and whether the component can be sold independently. These details help a professional understand why a finished-product benchmark may need scrutiny. They also prevent a commercial summary from presenting components as completed retail inventory merely because that produces a larger number.

Explain every benchmark and adjustment

If the available evidence uses a finished retail product as a reference, identify why that product is comparable. Record the source of the price and margin, the relevant period and any differences in quality or sales channel. An adjustment should have an explanation tied to evidence rather than a percentage chosen to reach a preferred result.

Keep the unadjusted and adjusted calculations visible. A reviewer should be able to see the effect of changing one assumption without reconstructing the entire model. This is particularly important when a claim combines observations from factories, wholesalers and online retailers. Each stage can represent a different economic value, so the stages should not be treated as equivalent.

Keep repetition separate from volume

Repeated seizures may support a chronology of conduct, while a selected seizure may supply the numerical base. Those are different uses of the same enforcement history. State which event supports which proposition. Do not automatically add all quantities together or apply the same multiplier to every figure appearing in the file.

For a manufacturer, retain order specifications, branding instructions and relevant communications for each batch. Identify the customer and the authority said to support the use. This case should not be turned into a general conclusion about export manufacturing: the HONDAKIT study addresses a different selected dispute, and each authorization and use pattern needs its own review.

Use a transparent business estimate

When a board needs an exposure range, prepare clearly labelled scenarios with the disputed inputs shown. Keep the court’s historical calculation in a separate reference note. The goal is to reveal which evidence would materially change the assessment, not to imply that the historical formula will be copied by another court.

For an existing claim, bring the actual count records, samples and procedural documents to the adviser. For a new product, prepare the proposed branding and goods for the ordinary filing discussion, with manufacturing contracts addressed separately. Neither a component price nor a filing approval is a complete answer to an infringement allegation.

What this case does not prove

• The 40% adjustment is case-specific, not a universal component discount.
• RMB 1,037,337.84 is the selected reported award; the earlier claim is not substituted for it.
• This dispute does not establish a blanket OEM or export rule.

What your business should check

Related guides and next action

• Understand goods and similar groups
• Separate the routes for an existing conflict
• Read registration fields without inferring a litigation outcome

New-filing guidance concerns your own proposed mark. Existing disputes and transfers need a separate scope and engagement; no outcome, price or deadline extension is promised by this article. Contract work has its own scope and is not included in the filing Free Check.