Huashan Debate | Approval and compliance ≠ exemption from infringement! It's time for the "Zhongyuan Petrochemical" and others to stop their false claims

Recently, the “Zhongyuan Petrochemical” gas station in the Luquan District of Shijiazhuang, Hebei, has attracted public attention. The appearance decoration, signage design, and even the English abbreviation SNOPEC are highly similar to “Sinopec,” which is not a coincidence but rather a common tactic of businesses to “ride on the coattails” of famous brands. In fact, this type of counterfeiting is not an isolated incident; the law has long prohibited trademark infringement and unfair competition, yet many “copycat” brands like “Shinguo Petrochemical” and “Zhongtun Petrochemical” continue to appear in various locations, disrupting market order.

The gas station involved is not operating without a license; it has been in business for over ten years and holds a legal business license. From an administrative approval perspective, it seems to be “compliant.” However, administrative approval and trademark infringement are two completely different legal concepts. Business registration only indicates that it has obtained the qualification to operate. The various appearance and signage designs of “Zhongyuan Petrochemical” are sufficient to mislead consumers into thinking it is associated with “Sinopec.” This subjective and intentional behavior is already suspected of trademark infringement and unfair competition, regardless of whether it has operational qualifications.

It is worth pondering why such an obvious “gray area” has persisted for ten years. Has it never been discovered, or has it been ignored? The core issue lies in the lack of regulatory oversight, especially the absence of preemptive regulation, resulting in a long-standing passive dilemma of “the public doesn’t report, and officials don’t investigate.” After the incident gained traction, local authorities have conducted inspections and rectifications, but post-incident corrections are far from sufficient. To address the chaos of “copycats,” regulatory effectiveness must be normalized and preemptive.

Consumers are not law enforcers and do not need to develop “keen eyes” to discern authenticity. Regulatory authorities should take proactive measures. Only by establishing a long-term mechanism, moving regulatory checkpoints forward, strengthening legal education for operating entities, increasing routine inspections, and improving case handling methods can we curb counterfeit branding at the source, put an end to the inappropriate trend of “riding on coattails,” and ensure consumers’ right to know and choose, allowing “copycats” to have nowhere to hide in a transparent market.

Author: Li Yuehan

Reviewed by: Wei Quan, Li Qiong

Edited by: Hu Lele

Massive information and precise interpretation can be found in the Sina Finance APP.