Interim Injunction Behavior Preservation

Urgency Proof

Judicial requirement for granting the order involves the applicant demonstrating that they will suffer significant and irreversible damage without the court’s intervention. The plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant is currently engaging in harmful behavior and that this behavior will continue throughout the trial. Courts look for a high probability of success on the merits of the case, meaning the plaintiff must have a very strong legal position from the outset.

This requires the submission of clear evidence of infringement, such as purchase records of knockoff products or expert reports on technical similarities. The judge must also consider the balance of interests, evaluating whether the injunction would cause more harm to the defendant than it prevents for the plaintiff. If the case is not urgent or the evidence is weak, the court will deny the request and tell the parties to wait for the final trial.

Security Deposit

Financial obligation of the applicant involves providing a guarantee, usually in the form of cash or a bank letter of credit, to protect the defendant from the consequences of a wrongful injunction. If the court later finds that the injunction was not justified and the defendant suffered financial losses as a result, the defendant can claim compensation from this deposit. The amount of the security is set by the judge and often reflects the potential lost revenue of the defendant during the period of the injunction.

This requirement prevents companies from using the legal system to freeze their competitors’ operations without a solid basis. It ensures that the applicant is serious and that they are willing to take a financial risk to protect their rights. For many foreign firms, the cost of the security deposit is a major factor in the decision to seek behavior preservation in a Chinese court.

Ruling Effect

Operational power of the injunction is immediate, and failure to comply can lead to severe penalties including fines and judicial detention of company officers. Once the court issues the order, it is usually served on the defendant by court bailiffs who ensure that the prohibited activity stops right away. The injunction remains in place until the final judgment is issued or until the court decides to lift it based on new evidence.

This provides the plaintiff with immediate relief and often puts pressure on the defendant to settle the case rather than face a long and expensive trial. In intellectual property disputes, the grant of an interim injunction is often the turning point that determines the final outcome of the conflict. It acts as a powerful deterrent against ongoing infringement and reinforces the authority of the court.

The use of this remedy has become more common in China as the judicial system has moved toward more robust protection of private rights.