AB InBev Investment (China) Co., Ltd. sued Xiamen Gulong Import and Export Co., Ltd. to Ningbo Intermediate People's Court for trademark infringement. In both the first and second trials, the court held that the defendant's behavior belonged to "other damages to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of others" as provided for in Item 7 of Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, which constituted trademark infringement.

The plaintiff AB InBev Investment (China) Co., Ltd. sued the defendant Xiamen Gulong Import and Export Co., Ltd. to the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court on the grounds of infringement because the defendant declared to the customs to import a batch of beer, the batch of beer bottles used trademarks such as "Coronita Extra and graphics", and used the word "Carona" on the customs declaration form, inspection and quarantine certificates of imported goods, and Chinese label samples. After trial, Ningbo Intermediate People's Court ruled that the defendant immediately stopped using the "Carona" logo in customs declaration and inspection and quarantine materials for imported beer, and compensated Budweiser for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) of 100,000 yuan.

Gulong Company refused to accept the decision and appealed to Zhejiang Higher People's Court. After trial, Zhejiang Higher People’s Court held that Gulong Company's actions undermined the correspondence between "Corona" trademark and the English "Coronita Extra and graphics" trademark, split the correspondence between the "Corona" trademark and the goods, weakened the source identification function of "Corona" trademark, and also damaged Budweiser's efforts to improve the popularity of the "Corona" trademark and open up the domestic market, and the situation thereof belongs to infringement of the exclusive right to use the trademark. Final judgment: reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

In the present case, the court further clarified that the importer's arbitrary translation of the logo inconsistent with the obligee's Chinese trademark constituted trademark infringement, and advocated that the importer should keep the original appearance of the goods as much as possible when selling parallel imported goods.