酒店巨头们 为什么盯上了商标维权？

This article maps out the full context of the recent wave of trademark enforcement actions launched by major hotel chains, summarizes key takeaways, and provides practical guidance for small independent business owners to avoid trademark infringement risks.

1. Background of the crackdown: Recently, a number of small independent stores have been sued for trademark infringement over similar business names to established hotel chains, sparking widespread public debate. Most public opinion sympathizes with the small businesses, claiming large brands are targeting them for quick settlement revenue. The actual driver behind the crackdown is that a large number of expired franchise stores have refused to exit the market after losing their brand licensing, and instead rebranded with similar names to free ride on the original brand’s traffic. Most recent court rulings have ruled in favor of brand owners.

2. Practical guidance for small operators: Business owners should not assume that passing business registration approval eliminates infringement risk. Business registration and trademark protection operate as two separate systems: business regulators only check for duplicate local business names, not existing registered trademarks. Before settling on a store name, operators should run a free trademark search on China’s Trademark Office database to avoid conflicting with well-known registered trademarks in the hospitality industry, and eliminate infringement risk upfront.

This article lays out the current state of trademark protection and its underlying drivers in China’s chain hotel industry, offering high-value insights for trademark protection and brand management practice for hotel brands.

1. Industry context and the necessity of enforcement: In 2025, China’s top three domestic hotel groups — Jinjiang, Huazhu, and BTG Homeinns — closed more than 2,000 underperforming stores collectively. A large share of expired franchise stores have remained in operation, rebranding with names similar to the original brand to divert search traffic and confuse customers during the pre-booking search process, causing severe harm to brand image and commercial interests. The recent wave of enforcement is a necessary measure to protect consistent brand experience, not a tactic to collect small settlement fees.

2. Insights and actionable recommendations: Courts have now ruled that pre-booking search confusion qualifies as trademark infringement, giving legal backing for brand enforcement. Over 200 infringement cases related to Orange Hotel have resulted in mostly wins for the brand. Brands can optimize their enforcement strategy: prioritizing mediation through regulatory authorities over direct lawsuits reduces the risk of negative public backlash and better protects brand reputation.

This article summarizes the current legal landscape of trademark infringement in China’s hotel industry, highlights infringement risks for small and medium-sized hotel operators, and outlines clear guidance for avoiding and addressing infringement claims.

1. Risk alert: Top hotel chains have dramatically ramped up trademark enforcement, and most recent court rulings favor brand owners. Even if your store’s design and pricing differ significantly from the trademarked brand, you can still be found liable for infringement if your store name is similar enough to cause customer confusion during pre-booking search. Rulings require infringers to pay damages and rebrand: small stores have already faced claims as high as 100,000 yuan, and Jinji Hotel was ordered to pay 20,000 yuan in damages, underscoring the significant risk.

2. Risk mitigation: Many small sellers mistakenly believe that passing business registration rules out infringement. In reality, business name registration and trademark protection are separate systems: regulators only check for duplicate local names, and do not screen for existing registered trademarks. Before finalizing a store name, always complete a free trademark search through the official database to avoid conflicting with well-known registered hospitality trademarks.

3. Guidance for responding to claims: Infringement disputes do not have to end in costly large-sum lawsuits. Past cases have been resolved through mediation with regulatory authorities after the store agreed to change its name. Prioritizing this less adversarial resolution path is recommended.

This article outlines the new trend of brand consolidation in China’s chain hotel industry, offering actionable insights for manufacturing and supply suppliers serving the hotel sector to identify new business opportunities and adjust their strategic direction.

1. Industry trend and business opportunities: Top hotel brands are currently optimizing their store networks by removing non-compliant outdated stores and copycat infringing locations, leading to gradual industry consolidation around compliant leading brands. Top brands are increasingly focused on delivering consistent user experience, which will drive growing demand for standardized hotel renovation and hospitality supplies. Compliant suppliers can capitalize on this trend by adjusting their product portfolios.

2. Compliance takeaways: Most consumers now book hotels through online travel agencies (OTAs), and most trademark infringement occurs during online search. Top brands are raising their compliance requirements for trademark use. Suppliers that produce hotel signage and offer store design services must strengthen their own compliance awareness: avoid producing counterfeit or similar branding for infringing stores to avoid being dragged into infringement disputes and damaging your own reputation.

This article analyzes new trends in trademark matters in China’s hotel industry, maps out core pain points for industry stakeholders, and provides clear strategic insights for all types of service providers serving the hotel sector.

1. Industry growth trend: Over the past two years, Chinese courts have received more than 120,000 new first-instance intellectual property cases annually, and trademark enforcement cases in the hotel sector have grown sharply. Orange Hotel alone is involved in more than 200 related cases, indicating rapidly growing market demand for trademark-related services.

2. Core customer pain points: On one hand, most small and medium-sized hotel operators in lower-tier markets lack basic trademark awareness: they do not know that business registration and trademark protection are separate systems, rarely complete pre-registration trademark searches, and are highly exposed to infringement risk. On the other hand, direct lawsuits by large brands often trigger negative public backlash, creating demand for less adversarial enforcement pathways.

3. Opportunity for service solutions: Service providers can launch pre-opening trademark search and consulting services for small operators to help them avoid infringement risk upfront; for brand owners, providers can offer trademark monitoring and enforcement liaison services, supporting brands to pursue mediation through regulatory authorities and reduce public relations risk, addressing the needs of both groups.

This article identifies the core scenario where hotel trademark infringement occurs, outlines directions for operational optimization for online platforms with hotel booking business, and helps platforms mitigate risk while improving user experience.

1. Current risks for platforms: Most consumers search and book hotels via OTAs, and copycat stores with similar branding easily cause customer confusion during pre-booking search. This diverts traffic from legitimate branded stores, leads to customer dissatisfaction with bad experiences, and can also trigger liability claims from brand owners against the platform, creating both legal and reputational risk for platforms.

2. Direction for operational optimization: Platforms can update their merchant onboarding review processes to add a trademark similarity check, proactively blocking obviously infringing copycat stores at the source to reduce infringement incidents.

3. Risk mitigation measures: Platforms should clearly define trademark compliance rules for onboarding merchants, publish requirements publicly, and add clear official badges to legitimate branded stores on search and listing pages to help consumers distinguish authentic locations from copycats, reduce confusion, improve user experience, and mitigate the platform’s own secondary liability risk.

This article sheds light on the new trend of trademark enforcement during the current consolidation of China’s hotel industry, organizes relevant judicial cases and industry background, and offers high research value for both industry and legal scholars.

1. New industry trend: In recent years, China’s leading domestic hotel brands have accelerated store network optimization; in 2025, the top three brands closed more than 2,000 stores collectively. A large number of expired franchise stores have rebranded with similar names to free ride on the original brand’s traffic, giving rise to the new phenomenon of widespread brand enforcement. This new issue, emerging during the industry’s consolidation and upgrading, reflects growing focus on protecting brand assets among leading hotel groups.

2. New shift in judicial practice: In recent trademark infringement cases, courts have formally established the rule that pre-sale search confusion qualifies as infringement. Even if a store’s design and operations differ significantly from the trademarked brand, it can still be found liable if a similar name causes search confusion and traffic diversion. This new trend in rulings carries important reference value for intellectual property research.

3. New research agenda: How to balance the intellectual property protection of leading brands with the survival space of small operators in lower-tier markets, and how to optimize brand enforcement strategies to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders, are new topics that merit in-depth research in both industrial economics and legal scholarship.