Trademark and unfair competition disputes

Hong Kong IPO disclosure precedents · 2 companies, 2 items

Disputes over use of a trademark or trade name in the company's name, products or marketing, including claims framed as unfair competition.

Compliance matters are read from filings since 24 August 2026.

2026-08-28Application ProofNon-compliance

On March 27, 2026, Shanghai Jiayin Biotechnology Co., Ltd.(上海嘉因生物科技有限公司) (the “Shanghai Jiayin”) filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province (the “Suzhou Court”), alleging that the inclusion of the words “嘉因” and “嘉因生物” in the enterprise name of Hangzhou Jiayin constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition, and seeking damages of RMB60.0 million.

Business · p. 207

On July 13, 2026, we submitted an objection to jurisdiction to the Suzhou Court, requesting that the case be transferred to the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou Municipality for trial.

Business · p. 207

Our PRC legal adviser with respect to intellectual property laws in the PRC is of the view that the infringement claims asserted by Shanghai Jiayin are without merit, and that the risk of our being required to pay RMB60.0 million in damages in connection with such alleged infringement is remote.

Business · p. 207
The company's explanation, the adviser's view and the page in the filing: see Matters
2026-08-25Application ProofNon-compliance
Sublime China Information Co., Ltd.山东卓创资讯股份有限公司

In August 2020, Shanghai Nonferrous Network Information Technology Co., Ltd.* (上海有色網信息科技股份有限公司) (“Shanghai Nonferrous Network”) (as plaintiff), a PRC company with a registered capital of RMB12 million as at the Latest Practicable Date who is a comprehensive service provider in the non-ferrous metals industry, offering benchmark prices, analysis, information, and other services in the metals and mining sector, filed an alleged unfair competition and trademark infringement claim against our Company and our Shanghai branch.

Business · p. 167

However, taking into account that (1) as a commodity information service provider, we attach great importance to a healthy competitive relationship with companies in the same industry; (2) to avoid the possible prolonged court procedures; and (3) to reduce media attention, we opted for and undergone a mediation with the plaintiff under the direction of a judge on 20 May 2022 and have reached a settlement arrangement with the plaintiff at a settlement amount of approximately RMB4.0 million (the “Settlement Arrangement”).

Business · p. 167
The company's explanation, the adviser's view and the page in the filing: see Matters

Tell us