Identifying the Right Defendant Behind a China Online Store

By Pan Jianxing · Published 25 September 2026

A foreign brand may find an apparently infringing product in a Chinese online store but still lack the information needed to name a defendant. The shop uses a trading name, the invoice names another business, and the parcel arrives from a third location. Choosing the most recognisable name can direct the claim at the wrong entity.

The investigation should answer two separate questions: who is the person or business, and what evidence connects that person or business to the alleged infringement? This article concerns that identification exercise, rather than the mechanics of requesting a listing removal.

Separate the storefront from the people performing each role

Start with the store operator responsible for the disputed sale. Then distinguish any manufacturer, distributor, service provider and platform operator. A factory name printed on packaging is a lead to check; it does not prove that the named factory made that particular item. A dispatch address may belong to a fulfilment warehouse. A person answering customer messages may simply be an employee.

Likewise, a familiar brand in a shop title does not identify the legal seller or establish authorisation. Record each actor's claimed role without adopting the claim as fact. Where the platform labels an offer as its own business, Article 37 of the E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China provides for the platform's civil responsibility as seller or service provider. Ordinary marketplace hosting requires a separate analysis.

Match the disclosed operator to a legal identity

Article 15 of the same law requires prominent, continuing disclosure of business licence information, relevant permits or the applicable exemption from market registration, or links to that information. Open the shop's business information page and preserve how it connects to the shop identifier. Do not rely solely on the display name above the product listing.

For a registered business, compare the exact Chinese name and unified social credit code against the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System. Record the registered address, status and relevant name changes. An English trading name is useful for communication but should not replace the verified Chinese identity. A registration match identifies a business; it does not establish that the business committed infringement.

A registration exemption is not proof that no accountable operator exists. Conversely, a missing licence display does not justify inventing a corporate defendant. The next step may be obtaining reliable information about an individual operator through an appropriate procedure.

Use transaction mismatches to frame questions

Where a lawful purchase has been made, compare the operator details with the invoice issuer, payment description, seller messages and shipping records from that same order. Keep the shared order and parcel identifiers visible in the working record. Several disconnected screenshots can suggest a relationship without demonstrating it.

• Payment: establish whether the displayed name belongs to the seller, a payment intermediary or a collection agent before drawing an ownership conclusion.
• Invoice: check which entity issued it and whether it covers the actual transaction under review.
• Logistics: distinguish the dispatching business, return address and courier depot; none automatically identifies the manufacturer.
• Communications: retain the context of any admission about who operates the store or supplies the goods, including the account that made it.

Common addresses, directors or contact numbers can justify further checking. They should not be presented as an automatic basis for treating separate companies as one defendant or making them jointly liable.

Identify the platform records needed to close a specific gap

Article 27 requires platforms to verify and register merchant identity, address and contact information, keep registration files and update them periodically. Article 31 requires preservation of product, service and transaction information for at least three years from completion of the transaction, subject to other applicable statutory rules. These duties help identify potential evidence holders; they do not give every complainant unrestricted access to merchant records.

A focused preservation request should identify the shop, transaction period and categories sought, such as operator registration history or records linking an order to the merchant account. Ask the platform about its lawful disclosure procedure. A private request is not a court order, and the statutory retention period does not guarantee that every desired record exists.

Articles 67 and 70 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended in 2023, address court collection of evidence that parties cannot obtain for objective reasons and court investigation powers. Counsel should assess the available procedure, relevance and specificity of the request. Access to a platform's complete customer database should not be assumed.

Keep identification work within lawful boundaries

Use public records and transaction materials obtained lawfully. Do not buy leaked identity files, obtain private bank records through unofficial channels or impersonate authorities. Article 106 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law, as amended in 2022, excludes evidence obtained through methods seriously infringing lawful rights, violating legal prohibitions or seriously offending public order and good morals.

The Personal Information Protection Law, Articles 6, 13 and 27, also requires a lawful processing basis and proportionate collection; public availability is not permission for unlimited reuse. Keep unrelated buyer details out of ordinary review copies and assess any proposed overseas disclosure separately.

Finish with an actor-by-actor assessment

For each proposed defendant, record the verified identity, alleged conduct, supporting source and unresolved gap. Article 209 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation requires sufficiently specific identifying information to distinguish the defendant from others. Meeting that identification standard remains separate from proving liability.

For an assessment of the appropriate parties and the remaining evidence gaps, contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential outline of the store, the disputed conduct and the identities already found.

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