Before Sending a China IP Warning Letter: Define the Claim and Plan the Follow-Up

By Pan Jianxing · Published 4 October 2026

A warning letter can open a useful discussion with a seller or manufacturer. It can also trigger a dispute about whether the challenged activity infringes at all. Before an overseas right holder sends a letter concerning China, the file should support the allegation and identify who will assess the response. The task is not finished when the recipient receives the message.

Distinguish a request for information, an infringement allegation and a settlement proposal. Combining them without explaining the limits of the available evidence can leave the recipient uncertain about what conduct is challenged and what would resolve the concern. A focused letter gives both sides something concrete to investigate.

Identify the right and the conduct precisely

Prepare a short rights schedule showing the owner, relevant registration or other protection basis, territory, status and scope. Confirm the sender's authority to speak for that owner. A group company, distributor or licensee should not assume that its commercial relationship authorises every legal demand.

Then identify the particular product, listing, reproduction or other act. Record dates, URLs, model numbers and the materials supporting the comparison. Explain which observations are confirmed and which require clarification. Avoid treating a similar trading name, a supplier rumour or a foreign registration as a complete China infringement analysis.

The letter should make it possible to identify the disputed activity without revealing every sensitive item in the litigation file. Choose representative material that actually supports the claim. Keep a record of what was enclosed, and make sure the text does not refer to evidence that was accidentally omitted.

Preserve important evidence before giving notice

Consider what may change once the concern is raised. Preserve the relevant listing, transaction, sample and communications through lawful methods appropriate to the intended use. A letter asking the recipient to preserve records is a practical request; it should not be described as a court preservation order.

For material outside the owner's control, assess whether an appropriate court application should precede correspondence. That assessment needs the actual risk, the evidence sought and the procedural basis. Do not invent urgency simply to strengthen a negotiating position. Keep the evidence plan separate from the request to stop or explain the conduct.

Match the demand to the present evidence

List the requested actions separately: identify the product's source, stop an identified use, preserve specified records, respond to a particular ownership question, or discuss a resolution. Each request should be understandable and capable of being checked. A demand that a business abandon every product line requires a different justification from a request addressing one listing.

State any response date as a date proposed in the correspondence unless a verified legal rule makes it a statutory deadline. Account for language, delivery and the time needed to retrieve documents. Do not present a short private deadline as giving the sender powers belonging to a court or enforcement authority.

Limit distribution to recipients whose involvement has a reason. Contacting customers, marketplaces or investors may have consequences different from writing to the alleged infringer. Review the evidence, wording and appropriate procedure before copying allegations to third parties. Platform complaints also have their own notice and follow-up requirements.

Understand the possibility of a non-infringement claim

Article 5 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation, Fa Shi [2020] No. 12, identifies facts to be proved by a claimant seeking a declaration of non-infringement: an infringement warning or complaint; a demand that the rights holder exercise its right to sue, with the sending and service dates; and failure to bring proceedings within a reasonable period.

This is an evidentiary provision, not a complete statement of every requirement for every declaratory action. It nevertheless explains why an owner should not issue a warning and then ignore a formal demand to litigate. The reasonable period and any special rules require a right-specific review. There is no universal number of days supplied by Article 5 for all China IP warnings.

Plan that review before sending. Identify the person who receives incoming correspondence, the lawyer who will assess a formal demand, and the records needed for a decision. Overseas approval arrangements should leave room to act on an actual procedural development.

Keep a complete correspondence record

Retain the final signed version, attachments, delivery method, recipient details and available delivery or acknowledgement records. Preserve the original electronic message and headers where available. A draft, a screenshot of an outbox and confirmed receipt are different evidence points; record accurately which one exists.

On a response, compare the explanation with the original allegation. Check licences, assignments, product differences or supplier documents before repeating the demand. A correction may narrow the dispute. If a material statement was inaccurate, assess the appropriate correction with counsel instead of allowing the earlier letter to remain the only account.

Maintain a decision log covering further investigation, revised correspondence, negotiation or proceedings, with responsible people and dates. None of those steps should be recorded as completed merely because it was proposed. A well-managed warning process preserves an accurate account of both the claim and the response.

For assistance assessing a proposed warning, contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential summary of the right, the activity and any correspondence deadline. The detailed evidence and draft can be reviewed after the conflict check and document-sharing arrangements.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →