Opple / Oupuite in China: A Royalty Benchmark and a Retrial Are Different Questions

Case at a glance

Selected dispute

Licensing evidence & retrial

Brand / case

Opple / Oupuite

Historical scope

2020 retrial · (2019)粤民再147

Evidence

[PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Editorial status

Independent research; professional review pending

The specific rights

The summary concerns 欧普 and 欧普特 on lighting goods, including the actual use of a sign registered for other goods. It is not evidence that every similar syllable or every cross-class use infringes. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

Historical references only.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

Selected timeline

1. Earlier examination historyGoods distinction

   The summary describes an unsuccessful lighting application and a registration on other goods. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

2. First instance and appealEarlier civil result

   The earlier courts did not find infringement. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

3. 22 April 2020Guangdong retrial

   The court reversed the earlier liability result and awarded RMB 3 million including reasonable expenses, within the requested relief. [OPPLE-GD]

4. 15 March 2021Official summary published

   The SPC collection explains the selected reasoning. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL]

5. 17 January 2022Further official summary

   The Guangdong court’s summary expressly identifies the retrial date and RMB 3 million award. [OPPLE-GD]

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

What the sources actually establish

The SPC summary describes a RMB 1.2775 million royalty-based calculation base and a multiplier of three. A further Guangdong official summary confirms that the 22 April 2020 order awarded RMB 3 million including reasonable expenses, reflecting the requested relief even though the arithmetic exceeded it. RMB 3.8325 million is therefore not the awarded sum. [PUNITIVE-OFFICIAL] [OPPLE-GD]

Read the actual use against the actual goods

A registration on one set of goods does not describe every way a sign is used in commerce. Collect the packaging, advertisements and product specifications for the challenged activity. Keep the registered goods list alongside the actual product rather than replacing one with a broad class label. A mismatch is a question for assessment, not a conclusion by itself.

For a new range, ask the commercial team to describe the products in ordinary language and supply technical details where relevant. This gives the filing adviser a better starting point than a request for a large class number. If the business already holds a registration, review proposed expansion deliberately instead of assuming the old certificate covers every future use.

Check whether the licence is a useful comparison

A royalty can reflect territory, duration, exclusivity, brand support and other commercial terms. Preserve the complete agreement and evidence of its performance if it is being used as a benchmark. A headline rate detached from its conditions can mislead a damages discussion. Identify the rights and goods the agreement actually covers.

Separate a negotiated or hypothetical rate from amounts actually paid. Record related-party relationships and unusual terms for the adviser rather than treating every licence as an interchangeable market transaction. The practical aim is a transparent comparison with limitations. It is not to claim that any licence fee can be multiplied mechanically to determine another party’s liability.

Keep the calculation and the remedy distinct

A worksheet may produce an amount above or below the relief requested. Show both figures and label their roles. Do not select the largest number in an official summary and call it the final award. The operative judgment, claim scope and procedural stage need to be checked before a public article makes that assertion.

This discipline also prevents double counting. An amount described as a multiplied total should not receive the same multiplier again in a management presentation. Ask whoever prepares the financial summary to preserve the source formula and units, and to identify whether costs are included. Unresolved details should stay unresolved rather than being filled by arithmetic alone.

Update commercial reporting after retrial

When a later proceeding changes the liability result, retain the earlier decisions as history and identify the later stage clearly. A business relying on an old case note may otherwise continue quoting a result that no longer describes the selected dispute. Keep dated summaries with their source and the particular issue they resolve.

For a current dispute, assemble the entire sequence and licence evidence for a scoped review. For a new lighting brand, use the existing filing guidance to prepare its own sign and goods. A historical retrial does not guarantee a similar reversal, and a new filing does not answer the consequences of earlier marketplace conduct.

What this case does not prove

• RMB 3 million including reasonable expenses was awarded; RMB 3.8325 million is the larger arithmetic result, not the order.
• The RMB 3 million request is distinguished from the calculation.
• A registration for other goods does not itself resolve the lawfulness of the actual lighting use.

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.