A small inn named "Jinji Hotel" in Zhengding, Hebei, has found itself in legal hot water over its name. The hotel, which charges roughly 60 yuan per night, was sued for 100,000 yuan by Hanting Xingkong (Shanghai) Hotel Management Co., Ltd., the company behind the major hotel chain Ji Hotel, over alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. The case was initially scheduled for a court hearing on August 24th, but according to the latest reports, both parties reached a preliminary settlement through court mediation on August 21st.

The owner of Jinji Hotel, Ms. Zhao, stated that both sides made concessions during the mediation process, which went relatively smoothly. While she declined to reveal the exact settlement amount, she noted it was "more than half less than the original 100,000 yuan." Looking ahead, Ms. Zhao mentioned that the hotel name has already been changed, and the current business license will be deregistered. A new hotel name will be registered after a trademark search is conducted through an agency, as she noted that "registering a two-character trademark is almost impossible now, so we can only consider names with four characters or more."

"My first reaction to receiving the court summons was shock. 100,000 yuan is more than a year's income for us," Ms. Zhao said. "I wish big companies would send a lawyer's letter first, giving us a deadline to rectify the issue, rather than jumping straight to a summons. If they sued only after we failed to make changes, it would feel more humane."

According to Tianyancha data, Hanting Xingkong has been the plaintiff in over a hundred trademark infringement disputes. In 2024, a "Jinji Hotel" in Jinshan District, Shanghai, was also sued for trademark infringement and ultimately ordered to pay 20,000 yuan in compensation. These types of "big brand versus small business" trademark cases have increasingly come into the public eye in recent years. Just two months ago, the chain "Yujian Xiaomian" sued a small family-run restaurant named "Yujian Xiaomian" in Nanyang, Henan, before publicly apologizing and withdrawing the lawsuit. Despite both cases involving a one-character difference, the outcomes were vastly different.

Legal experts point out that whether confusion is likely to occur is a necessary condition for determining trademark infringement. Even if a mark is similar to a registered trademark, it does not constitute infringement if it does not lead to confusion among the relevant public.

In July, the Jinji Hotel in Zhengding County received a court summons. The plaintiff, Hanting Xingkong, alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition, demanding the inn immediately stop infringing on the Ji Hotel trademark, remove infringing signage, refrain from using identical or similar identifiers, and pay 100,000 yuan in economic damages and reasonable expenses. The case was slated for a hearing on August 24th, but on August 21st, the two parties preliminarily reached a settlement agreement through court mediation.

Ms. Zhao told the media that she had been actively communicating since receiving the summons and had already spent over 10,000 yuan on legal fees and consultation costs before the trial. After the incident attracted public attention, the opposing lawyer proactively reached out, and with the judge's mediation, both sides made concessions. The process went relatively smoothly. While Ms. Zhao did not disclose the specific settlement amount, she confirmed it was significantly reduced, "by more than half of the original 100,000 yuan."

She also noted that following the public attention, she had already taken corrective action, changing the hotel's name to "Xiang Jingmei Hotel." She plans to deregister the existing business license and register a new name, having already commissioned an agency to conduct a trademark search. "Registering a two-character trademark is almost impossible now, so we can only consider names with four characters or more."

Tianyancha data shows that Jinji Hotel was registered and began operations in August 2021. Hanting Xingkong had applied to register the "Jinji" trademark in Class 43 (catering and accommodation) in 2017. The initial application was rejected, but after a review, it was finally approved in July 2025, with exclusive rights valid until July 2035.

In terms of business positioning, Ms. Zhao believes Jinji Hotel and Ji Hotel are fundamentally different. She explained that the entire inn has only about a dozen rooms, primarily housing long-term renters like migrant workers and college students. The hotel relies mainly on offline customers, with its only online presence on Meituan. Each room costs around 60 yuan per night, with the platform taking a commission, leaving roughly 50 yuan per night in revenue.

"My first reaction to the summons was shock. We have elderly parents and young children to support, and we have to manage the business. Being suddenly dragged into a lawsuit is exhausting. When we registered the name, we had no idea about trademarks, and we couldn't afford to do a search. 100,000 yuan is more than a year's income for us. If we had to pay that, we planned to close the business for good," Ms. Zhao said.

Article 57 of the Trademark Law stipulates that using a mark similar to a registered trademark on the same goods or services without permission, where it is likely to cause confusion, constitutes infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Regarding whether Jinji Hotel constitutes infringement, lawyer Wang Longguo, a partner at Shanghai Shenyihe Law Firm, noted that both Jinji Hotel and Ji Hotel provide accommodation services, meeting the "use on the same service" requirement. The names differ by only one character and have a certain similarity, so the lawsuit appears to comply with legal provisions in that sense.

However, Wang also stated that whether confusion is likely is a necessary condition for determining trademark infringement. Even if a mark is similar to a registered trademark, it does not constitute infringement if it does not lead to confusion among the relevant public. "A trademark owner claiming infringement must prove the likelihood of confusion. The accused infringer has the right to provide rebuttal evidence against the owner's claim, and the court will determine whether infringement exists based on the evidence presented in each case," Wang said.

Regarding the "similarity" standard, Wang noted that Jinji Hotel and Ji Hotel are quite different—their pronunciations and meanings differ, so it cannot be definitively concluded that they are similar. As for the "likelihood of confusion" standard, it would be even harder to determine that Jinji Hotel infringes on Ji Hotel's trademark. Ji Hotel, as a nationally renowned chain, has high social recognition, and it would be difficult for customers to mistake Jinji Hotel for Ji Hotel given their different signage, decor, and pricing.

As of the time of writing, Huazhu Group, the parent company of Ji Hotel, has not issued an official response. A customer service representative for Huazhu Group stated that the matter would be registered and forwarded to the relevant department, with staff to follow up later. No return call had been received by the time of publication.

The lawsuit against Jinji Hotel is not an isolated case. In recent years, Hanting Xingkong, as the plaintiff, has been highly active in trademark enforcement. Additionally, the law firm representing the plaintiff in this case, Beijing Jinyong Law Firm, has been Huazhu Group's intellectual property legal advisor for many years. Tianyancha data shows that Hanting Xingkong has been the plaintiff in 159 trademark infringement disputes to date. In 2024, Hanting Xingkong sued the Jinguo Hotel in Jinshan District, Shanghai, for trademark infringement, with the court ultimately ordering the hotel to pay 20,000 yuan in compensation. Beyond the Ji Hotel brand, these cases also involve other Huazhu Group brands such as Hanting and Orange.

In fact, similar "big brand versus small business" trademark disputes have repeatedly sparked public debate this year. In June, Yujian Xiaomian sued a family-run restaurant named "Yujian Xiaomian" in Nanyang, Henan, for trademark infringement, claiming 7,000 to 8,000 yuan. The chain subsequently withdrew the lawsuit, and its founder publicly apologized, announcing the free transfer of the registered "Yujian Xiaomian" trademark in Class 35 to the other party, while also terminating cooperation with the outsourced law firm.

Public opinion on such enforcement actions is divided. Supporters argue that the prevalence of similarly named stores not only diverts customers and confuses consumers but may also lead to issues like substandard service and poor hygiene at imitation stores. Critics, however, view high-value lawsuits against micro-businesses with minimal revenue as "bullying the weak," increasing the survival pressure on individual operators and potentially damaging the brand's public image, which could be counterproductive.

Ms. Zhao expressed her wish: "I hope big companies would send a lawyer's letter first, giving us a deadline to rectify, rather than jumping straight to a summons. If they only sued after we refused to make changes, it would feel more humane. These big companies are already wealthy enough and publicly listed, while we individual operators are still struggling to make ends meet."

Wang Longguo noted that authorizing law firms or third parties to handle trademark enforcement is a common practice for many companies. Typically, the entrusted firm will report to the company before initiating legal proceedings, and the company makes the final decision on whether to sue. "When well-known companies initiate litigation, they should consider not only whether they can win legally but also whether the lawsuit aligns with business ethics and social expectations. If a company is perceived as abusing litigation rights, it could trigger consumer boycotts, directly harming the brand's image."

The trademark dispute also highlights the importance of Ji Hotel to Huazhu Group. As one of the group's flagship brands, Ji Hotel has shown strong growth in recent years. According to financial reports, as of the end of the second quarter of this year, there were 3,845 Ji Hotels in operation, accounting for approximately 28% of Huazhu Group's total operating hotels, with 784 more in the pipeline. As of June 30th, Huazhu Group operated over 30 brands worldwide, with 13,539 hotels across more than 1,460 cities. In the first half of 2026, Huazhu Group reported revenue of 13.117 billion yuan, up 11% year-over-year, with operating profit of 3.7 billion yuan, up 27%. The company has raised its full-year 2026 guidance, expecting annual revenue growth of 4% to 8%.