Erdos in China: Online Sales Data Needs a Defensible Calculation

Case at a glance

Selected dispute

Online sales & damages

Brand / case

Erdos

Historical scope

(2015)京知民初1677 · Beijing IP Court

Evidence

[PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Editorial status

Independent research; professional review pending

The specific rights

The selected case concerns the 鄂尔多斯 mark and its use on cashmere yarn in an online store. It does not establish ownership of every geographical reference to Erdos or a current portfolio. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Historical references only.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

Selected timeline

1. 2004Historical rights acquisition

   The official summary records the claimant’s acquisition of the selected mark. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

2. 2015Online use

   The summary describes the challenged cashmere-yarn sales. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

3. Selected Beijing judgmentCivil award

   The court used twice the assessed infringement profit; neither party appealed according to the summary. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

4. 15 March 2021Official summary published

   The case was included in the SPC punitive-damages collection. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

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

What the sources actually establish

The official summary explains a calculation using sales volume, unit price and a reasonable profit margin, followed by a two-times assessment. It reports that the judgment became effective without appeal. It does not supply a verified total award for this article. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Start with the goods behind the number

An online store may sell several products under one account. Identify the listings and variants said to be involved before collecting totals. Record the relevant time period and whether a number represents orders, units, reviews or a platform display. These measures answer different questions and should not be interchanged in a damages worksheet.

Where a listing changes, preserve the earlier version and explain the relationship between versions. A current product page may have inherited reviews or sales counts from an earlier item. Do not silently assign all activity to the challenged goods. The strongest commercial preparation is a transparent list of what is known, what was observed and what still requires evidence.

Make the margin assumption visible

Revenue is not automatically profit. If the working calculation uses a margin, identify its source and explain why it might relate to the selected goods and period. Keep the base data and any adjustments in separate columns. A reviewer should be able to reproduce the arithmetic without guessing which costs or transactions were included.

Prepare alternative calculations when an input is uncertain, but label them as scenarios rather than court findings. This helps a business understand the sensitivity of an estimate and ask better questions. It should not become a public claim that a particular defendant earned an amount that has not been established by reliable evidence.

Separate ordinary loss evidence from aggravated conduct

A sales calculation and evidence about deliberate or repeated conduct serve different purposes. Keep communications, earlier notices and subsequent activity in a separate chronology. Show what the recipient actually received and what happened afterwards. A large sales figure alone should not be used to invent knowledge, intent or repetition.

The same discipline applies to a business receiving a complaint. Preserve procurement documents and instructions about the challenged branding, and record any steps taken in response. Do not edit older records to make the response appear earlier. An accurate account of conduct is more useful for professional assessment than a retrospective narrative built around a preferred multiplier.

Use the example without promising a tariff

A two-times calculation in one historical case is not a standard price for every online infringement. The selected rights, evidence, procedure and requested remedy matter. Keep the official summary’s method separate from a forecast prepared for a new dispute, and avoid presenting an unverified total just because the formula appears understandable.

For a new yarn or apparel brand, begin with its own name, goods and intended sales channels. For an existing online dispute, collect the listings, transaction evidence and notices for a separate review. The filing route and the dispute route can support different business needs, but neither should be described as guaranteeing a particular damages outcome.

What this case does not prove

• The summary’s two-times method is not a universal damages tariff.
• No total award is invented where the selected source does not provide it.
• The finding does not establish exclusive rights in every geographical use of the word Erdos.

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.