From Administrative Actions to Criminal Enforcement: Enhancing Jewelry Protection
China’s intellectual property enforcement is undergoing a major shift that redefines artistic protection and reflects a more mature legal system for creative industries. For years, international brands in China struggled to protect their industrial designs, often relying on administrative seizures that only temporarily disrupted counterfeiters, leaving design-focused business models exposed. However, a landmark ruling in late 2025 has fundamentally changed this by setting a strong precedent for protecting jewelry and fashion accessories through criminal copyright law.
This landmark case involved the renowned fashion jewelry brand APM MONACO, which successfully pursued criminal copyright charges against a large counterfeiting network in Shanghai. Unlike typical administrative measures, this was the first criminal copyright case in China’s jewelry sector to result in a public sentencing. In November 2025, the Huangpu District Court in Shanghai issued a decisive judgment, sentencing and fining the leaders of an operation that copied over 500 original designs worth more than five million RMB. This ruling not only punishes specific infringers but also legally recognizes jewelry designs as works of fine art under Chinese law, creating a strong deterrent against large-scale creative theft. This case provides valuable insight into how China’s courts are tackling modern IP challenges and offers a framework for international brands to use criminal law to protect their market presence effectively.
Addressing Doubts: When Does Craftsmanship Become Crime?
At the start of the APM MONACO case, the legal team faced familiar skepticism among IP practitioners in China. Initial reactions from judges and the public were cautious. After all, the defendants were skilled artisans making attractive jewelry sold at affordable prices. The products were well-made and popular with consumers. Public opinion often saw these manufacturers as benevolent providers offering “luxury for less” or, at worst, small businesses in minor disputes with large corporations. The key question was whether copying a necklace truly constituted a crime and if criminal prosecution was excessive.
This skepticism arises from a common misunderstanding of what creates value in today’s fashion economy. To casual observers, a bracelet is a functional accessory. If a copycat makes a similar item with cheaper materials at a lower price, where is the harm? Defendants argued they met consumer demand for affordability, using their skills to serve the market. However, this confuses craft with art and ignores the crucial difference between practical utility and creative expression. The breakthrough came by carefully dismantling this misconception. The legal argument stressed that for brands like APM MONACO and the wider fashion and accessories sector, the product’s core value lies not in its function but in its aesthetic appeal, original design, and artistic expression. Legally, this separates a functional product from applied art or a work of fine art.
The court acknowledged that jewelry, especially in the affordable luxury segment, is driven by beauty, self-expression, and the emotional impact of unique design—not practical necessity. When a company invests millions in creating a distinctive visual style, that style becomes its most valuable asset. Therefore, the public interest in allowing cheap copies to flood the market does not outweigh the need to protect creators’ rights to their artistic expression.
Clarifying the Public Interest Misunderstanding: Utility Versus Creative Expression
A common analogy used by infringers—and sometimes judges—is comparing jewelry copying to generic pharmaceuticals: just as generic drugs copy patented formulas to make medicine affordable, shouldn’t generic jewelry copy designs to make fashion accessible? The APM MONACO case rejected this analogy by highlighting the different legal interests. Generic drug laws balance patent protection with the fundamental human right to health, allowing temporary patent suspension because health is essential. Jewelry, however beautiful, is not a survival necessity. There is no human right to cheap necklaces that justifies undermining a designer’s livelihood. The low price of counterfeits is not a social benefit but a predatory pricing tactic that captures market share without bearing innovation costs. When craftsmanship is used solely to steal another’s creativity, it stops being a virtue and becomes a weapon.
This understanding is key to applying criminal copyright law. Under Chinese law, jewelry designs qualify for copyright protection if they meet the separability test—the artistic beauty must be appreciable independently of practical function. The legal team showed that APM MONACO’s designs’ lines, shapes, stone settings, and silhouettes can be appreciated as art even if not worn. This separability unlocks copyright protection, distinguishing these pieces from mere industrial parts and placing them firmly within protected artistic works.
Protecting the Affordable Luxury Model: Why Criminal Enforcement Is Essential
Criminal enforcement is especially important for the affordable luxury business model, which includes many international brands in China. Unlike traditional luxury brands relying on heritage or material value, affordable luxury brands depend on design innovation, speed, and unique aesthetics. Their target consumers—young, design-conscious individuals with limited budgets—are the same group counterfeiters target. When copycats sell near-perfect replicas at a fraction of the price, they not only steal sales but erode the brand’s value. If luxury is cheaply available, brand equity declines, and consumer trust in authenticity weakens. The damage is existential. For design-driven companies, large-scale theft threatens their foundation. Past remedies—civil lawsuits or administrative raids—were often insufficient. Civil cases are slow, costly, and require proving damages for each design, a daunting task with hundreds of products. Administrative raids are faster but fines are often seen as a business expense by sophisticated counterfeiters.
Exposing Organized Infringement: Fighting Industrial-Scale Counterfeiting
The APM MONACO case revealed that when infringement becomes scaled and chained, it crosses a critical line. This means the infringement is no longer isolated acts by individuals but an organized, industrial operation with specialized roles: factories for production, warehouses for logistics, online teams for traffic diversion, and retail networks. This sophisticated supply chain competes directly with rights holders in the mass market. Such industrialized infringement disrupts market order, encourages unfair competition, and fosters a cutthroat culture that lowers quality and stifles innovation. When copycats profit without investing in design, legitimate innovators are forced to cut corners, leading to a market where innovation is discouraged. The Shanghai court explicitly recognized this, stating that allowing industrialized theft to continue would undermine the industry’s innovation foundation. Imposing criminal liability, including imprisonment, sends a clear message: design theft is a serious crime. This creates a high cost of crime that administrative fines cannot match. For the first time, infringers face the risk of losing personal freedom, a powerful deterrent.
Conclusion: Adopting a New Strategic Approach to IP Enforcement in China
This shift has major strategic implications for international brands’ IP enforcement in China. It signals the end of relying solely on administrative raids for brands with strong design portfolios. The most effective approach now combines intelligence gathering, evidence collection, and strategic use of criminal procedures. The goal is not just to seize goods but to dismantle counterfeit networks. Criminal charges allow rights holders to use police and prosecutor investigative powers far beyond civil discovery, helping trace funds, identify upstream manufacturers, and expose entire shadow supply chains. However, this approach requires careful, sophisticated navigation of the judicial system. Criminal enforcement should be reserved for genuine cases with solid evidence—it is a precise tool, not a blunt instrument. The success of the APM MONACO case depended on crafting a compelling narrative aligning the brand’s commercial interests with the judiciary’s commitment to high-quality development. The legal argument framed jewelry design protection not as foreign corporations targeting local small businesses but as essential to upgrading the industry, protecting honest labor, and preventing market degradation through low-quality copying. The ruling also emphasized distinguishing inspiration from theft. While creative industries thrive on influence and trends, systematic, high-fidelity copying of a brand’s core visual identity is theft. This parasitic behavior adds no consumer value and hinders industry progress. By criminally punishing such conduct, the judiciary encourages manufacturers to evolve from mere “keepers of craft” to genuine “creators of art.”
For international law firms advising clients on entering or expanding in China, this case offers a powerful new tool. Brands can now confidently protect their designs not only through civil means but with criminal law support. This opens opportunities for proactive measures such as copyright registration of key designs and supply chain monitoring for early signs of industrial copying. It also strengthens cooperation with Chinese authorities, who are increasingly aware of the economic reasons behind design protection. In summary, the APM MONACO criminal copyright case marks a turning point, shifting from reactive administrative enforcement to proactive criminal jurisprudence in China. It confirms that jewelry design is recognized as art deserving the highest legal protection. For international brands, this provides a powerful new defense against counterfeiting, transforming China from a challenging market into one where design rights can be strongly upheld. As this criminal framework becomes a key competitive advantage, the precedent is clear: in China, copying fashion is now a serious crime.