The defendant, Tongyi Company, authorized by Singapore Crocodile Company to sell its products, tore off the trademarks on the Maple Leaf trousers produced by Beijing Garment Factory No. 1, replaced them with the Cardile Crocodile trademark and sold them at a high price. Beijing Garment Factory No. 1 therefore Sued Tongyi and other companies.

There are two opinions surrounding the trial of this case. One opinion is that it is a trademark infringement, or reverse counterfeiting to be precise; the other opinion is that it is an act of unfair competition and is inconsistent with trademark infringement. Trademark infringement has nothing to do with it. The court finally made a judgment requiring the defendant to apologize and compensate in accordance with the General Principles of Civil Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court presiding over the case later wrote an article stating that both the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law could be applied to Tongyi Company’s actions. However, the plaintiff sued for infringement of business reputation and unfair competition. Therefore, The court conducts hearings in accordance with the principle of request by the parties stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law. The plaintiff, Winfield Company, registered and used a trademark composed of "WENLANDE" and "WENLANDE" as well as a butterfly pattern deformed from the pinyin letters on its clothing. The defendant, Beijing Huana Company, sold the same style of women's short-sleeved silk woven tops at the counters of several shopping malls in Beijing. After careful identification, it was found that although the collar of the clothing sold by the defendant had its own label, the inside of the clothing did not The plaintiff's butterfly pattern was clearly printed on the washable label. The plaintiff's clothing price was 160 yuan, while the defendant's price was 238 yuan. The plaintiff therefore filed a lawsuit with the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court.

There are different opinions surrounding this case. Some people believe that there is no provision in the law and this behavior is not illegal; some believe that it violates the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; others believe that it violates both the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court finally ruled that the defendant had violated the Trademark Law and ordered the defendant to apologize and compensate for losses of 100,000 yuan.