News

Mr Fu felt deeply aggrieved that he had been sued for copyright infringement despite having used images purchased from a legitimate stock photo library. The plaintiffs, Mr Zeng and Mr Wu, had ‘created works’ by copying and piecing together images belonging to others, then rushed to register the copyright before anyone else, subsequently filing multiple infringement lawsuits to claim damages. This practice of profiting through mass litigation has been defined by experts in the intellectual property sector as ‘copyright cockroaches’. As early as the beginning of this century, ‘copyright cockroaches’ had already emerged in China. Under the guise of protecting intellectual property rights, they file mass lawsuits, their sole aim being to secure compensation. Critics argue that ‘copyright cockroaches’ distort the value of works into tools for profit through litigation, which runs counter to the original intent of intellectual property protection. Against the backdrop of strengthened intellectual property protection, striking a balance between safeguarding rights in accordance with the law and preventing frivolous litigation warrants close attention.

In this regard, Mr Zhao Zhanling, a special researcher at the Centre for Intellectual Property at China University of Political Science and Law and a partner at JAVY Law Firm, was interviewed by the *Procuratorial Daily* and provided an in-depth analysis of such incidents.

1. Case Study: Legitimate Products Facing Claims, Cross-Border Merchants Faced with a Dilemma

“I originally thought it was a normal commercial dispute, but I never imagined there was a carefully orchestrated ‘script’ behind it.” Speaking of that cross-border copyright dispute, Mr Fu could not help but sigh with regret. In 2024, Mr Fu operated several cross-border e-commerce shops, specialising in homeware such as shower curtains and cushions, and sales had consistently been strong. However, an email notifying him of legal proceedings from a foreign court suddenly arrived, shattering Mr Fu’s peaceful life.

The email stated that the plaintiffs, Mr Zeng and Mr Wu, were suing Mr Fu, claiming that the printed patterns on the products sold in his shop infringed their copyright registered in the United States. They demanded that the products be taken down immediately, that funds in his account be frozen, and that he pay substantial damages.

“That pattern was clearly public-domain material I purchased from a legitimate stock image website – how could it have become someone else’s ‘original work’?” After consulting a solicitor, Mr Fu gasped in dismay: even if the validity of the claim was in doubt, the protracted litigation process and the costs of defending the case – running into hundreds of thousands or even millions of yuan – would be enough to bankrupt his business.

Faced with the other party’s demand for a settlement of tens of thousands of US dollars, Mr Fu found himself in a dilemma: defending the case would be too costly; compromising would leave him feeling bitterly resentful. Shortly afterwards, the shop against which he was suing received a provisional injunction issued by a foreign court.

In discussions with other industry peers, Mr Fu discovered that many traders were facing the same predicament. Mr Zhang, the owner of a home textiles company in Keqiao District, Shaoxing City, Zhejiang Province—from whom Mr Fu and several other cross-border e-commerce traders sourced their stock—had experienced a similar situation. After the court froze his shop’s funds, he was unable to continue normal operations: ‘My original sales channels suddenly vanished; I couldn’t collect payments for goods as usual, and I was unable to pay my suppliers either.’

“The lawyer checked the other party’s copyright certificate and discovered that it had been registered very late, and the origin of the floral patterns was unclear—this is nothing short of fraud!” Out of indignation, Mr Fu chose to report the matter to the domestic police, accusing the other party of fraud. However, as the evidence relating to the case needed to be obtained from overseas and the method of the crime was novel, the police did not open a case.

In November 2024, Mr Fu and other victims learnt that among the 48th batch of guiding cases published by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in 2023, the ‘Supervision Case concerning a Series of False Litigation Cases involving Zhou Moumou, Xiang Moumou and Li Moumou regarding Copyright Ownership and Infringement Disputes’, handled by the Keqiao District People’s Procuratorate in Shaoxing, bore a striking resemblance to their own circumstances. “Did the people suing us use the same criminal methods? If so, can a case be opened?” They approached the Intellectual Property Prosecution Office of the Keqiao District People’s Procuratorate to request that the procuratorate supervise the case.

The procuratorate discovered that the domestic company operated by Zeng and Wu was indeed based in Keqiao District, Shaoxing City; they had remotely directed US lawyers to file the lawsuits, and there were other victims within the jurisdiction.

The investigation revealed that the ‘source files’ for some of the patterns in question had appeared on a well-known stock image website several years earlier, with clearly identified original authors; indeed, some of the patterns were ‘old designs’ that had long since entered the public domain. The so-called ‘creative work’ of Zeng and Wu amounted to nothing more than simple copying, piecing together, or even direct screen captures. The two had rushed to complete copyright registration for the patterns in question in January 2021 and May 2024, respectively.

“This aspect directly undermines the legitimacy of the opposing party’s copyright basis,” stated Xu Liang, the prosecutor handling the case.

The two Zengs had previously attempted, through several regional general agents, to purchase exclusive licensing rights for specific categories of the patterns in question, with the intention of ‘monopolising’ those rights. However, as authors cannot transfer the entirety of their copyright, they ultimately failed in this endeavour. Nevertheless, the pair continued to file lawsuits en masse, relying on their US copyright registration certificates, which were riddled with flaws.

The pair’s modus operandi was identical: under the pretence of protecting their rights, they filed lawsuits in US courts against domestic cross-border e-commerce businesses using similar floral designs, alleging copyright infringement. They applied for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to freeze the defendants’ shop funds, and either obtained court orders to have these funds transferred to them or induced the defendants into settlement negotiations by leading them to believe the plaintiffs held the copyright to the works, thereby securing settlement payments and defrauding such businesses.

“They are banking on the fact that we don’t have the time, energy or money to defend ourselves in court,” said another victimised business owner.

Following a thorough investigation, the procuratorial authorities concluded that Zeng and his accomplice had, through means such as fabricating works and registering copyright in advance, exploited the US Copyright Office’s formal review process to fraudulently obtain copyright registration certificates. They then launched a series of malicious lawsuits, forcing the victimised cross-border e-commerce operators to pay settlement sums to extricate themselves from the proceedings due to the exorbitant costs of defending against the claims. This has severely disrupted the order of cross-border trade and is suspected to constitute crimes such as fraud and extortion. The pair filed a total of seven lawsuits, two of which were deemed to be malicious copyright infringement lawsuits.

In January 2025, the procuratorate lawfully issued a ‘Notice Requiring an Explanation of Reasons for Not Initiating an Investigation’ to the public security authorities, supervising them in initiating a criminal investigation against Zeng and his accomplice. In May of the same year, the public security authorities transferred the case to the Keqiao District People’s Procuratorate for review and prosecution on the grounds that the pair were suspected of fraud. The procuratorate guided the public security authorities in actively pursuing asset recovery and damage compensation, seizing and freezing over 380,000 yuan in funds related to the case in accordance with the law. Both defendants voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted the penalties, and proactively returned more than 130,000 yuan of the ill-gotten gains.

Following the prosecution’s indictment, in January this year, the court handed down its first-instance judgement, sentencing the defendant Zeng to four years’ imprisonment for fraud, and sentencing Wu to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years and six months, with both defendants also being fined. Both defendants pleaded guilty and accepted the judgement in court. The judgement has now taken effect.

2. Where do ‘copyright cockroaches’ get their nerve?

Alleging copyright infringement, filing mass lawsuits and demanding settlement payments: the tactics employed by Mr Zeng and his associate are consistent with the behavioural characteristics of ‘copyright cockroaches’.

In recent years, China’s internet industry has developed rapidly, digital dissemination has become increasingly widespread, and intellectual property protection has been continuously strengthened. At the same time, the number of intellectual property cases has also surged dramatically. In 2025, courts across the country accepted 473,400 new intellectual property civil cases at first instance, representing an increase of more than 50-fold compared to the 9,329 cases recorded in 2004.

“In China, ‘copyright cockroaches’ have evolved from their early focus on the image sector to a more diversified approach. The current trends include: firstly, expansion into new fields, spreading from photographic works to fine art, typeface libraries and literary works; and secondly, a diversification of actors, with intermediary organisations such as intellectual property agencies and legal consultancy firms playing an increasingly important role alongside specialised copyright management companies,” explained lawyer Zhao Zhanling.

Why have ‘copyright cockroaches’ been able to proliferate, and why do their claims for damages have a success rate of as high as 90 per cent?

“‘Copyright cockroaches’ are highly adept at exploiting the rules,” stated lawyer Zhao Zhanling. “Firstly, they carefully screen defendants, targeting almost exclusively commercial entities rather than ordinary individuals, as such entities are typically more willing to settle and have the financial capacity to pay compensation; secondly, they are familiar with the adjudication standards of specific courts and concentrate on filing lawsuits with certain local courts; thirdly, they employ standardised litigation tools, such as issuing letters of authorisation, watermarked images and credible timestamps, which significantly reduce the cost and difficulty of presenting evidence.”

Mr Zhao Zhanling also highlighted the reasons why legal consultancy firms are able to play a role in this phenomenon: “Their fee structures are very low, and they are not subject to direct supervision by judicial administrative departments or bar associations.” The reporter learnt that legal consultancy firms may register with China’s market regulation authorities to provide services such as legal advice, drafting of legal documents and risk assessment; however, they are prohibited from acting as legal representatives or defence counsel in litigation without authorisation. This lends them a degree of obscurity—they rarely appear directly in copyright court rulings.

3. The Line Between Legitimate Rights Protection and Malicious Litigation: Striking a Balance Between Rights Protection and Frivolous Litigation

In fact, opinions on ‘copyright cockroaches’ have always been mixed. Some believe that ‘copyright cockroaches’ bring legal action based on copyright or licences obtained through lawful means; they view this as a legitimate and reasonable way to prevent copyright infringement; others, however, contend that ‘copyright cockroaches’ seek to obtain unjust commercial gains by pursuing claims through mass litigation and similar means, constituting an abuse of rights that runs counter to the original purpose of intellectual property protection—namely, to foster innovation.

Lawyer Zhao Zhanling stated: ‘Bringing a lawsuit whilst knowing one does not hold the copyright, bringing a lawsuit after acquiring copyright through improper means, or using litigation as a means of extortion, all constitute malicious litigation.’

In February this year, the Supreme People’s Court issued its 49th batch of guiding cases, among which the ‘Case of Fujian Heng Mou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Quanzhou Ri Mou Flow Instrumentation Co., Ltd. concerning liability for damages arising from the malicious filing of intellectual property litigation’ specifically addressed the determination and accountability for malicious intellectual property litigation. The case clearly states that bringing a patent infringement lawsuit against another party whilst knowing that one’s claims are manifestly lacking in legal basis or factual grounds, thereby infringing upon the rights and interests of others, constitutes a malicious act of abuse of litigation rights; where another party seeks to hold the malicious litigant liable for infringement, the People’s Court shall support such a claim in accordance with the law.

“The influx of a large number of small-claims cases into the courts has exacerbated the conflict between a heavy caseload and a shortage of personnel, resulting in a serious waste of judicial resources,” added Mr Zhao Zhanling.

Strengthening intellectual property protection is an inevitable trend; the emergence and proliferation of ‘copyright cockroaches’ raise a question worthy of consideration: how can we prevent the abuse of intellectual property litigation whilst safeguarding the legitimate right to sue?

Ultimately, copyright holders and users of works are not opposing sides. Protecting intellectual property is tantamount to protecting innovation. In the long term, however, how to prevent ‘copyright cockroaches’ and their ‘profit-driven’ litigation strategies from creating a chilling effect on social innovation, whilst remaining steadfast in the original intent to protect innovation and striking a balance between the protection of rights and the abuse of litigation, remains a question to be continually explored as we move forward.