The fact that notification of an IP right exists or is registered does not amount to a threat of proceedings. These provisions have been interpreted very narrowly by the courts; doing any more than sending, for example, a copy of the trade mark certificate and a covering letter drawing the recipient’s attention to it, could potentially take an IP owner out of the exceptions and amount to an implied threat. In Jaybream Ltd v Abru Aluminium Ltd  FSR 597, the notification of a design registration in a letter which threatened proceedings for copyright infringement was held to be an actionable threat. The same could apply, if a letter threatening proceedings for passing off also notified the recipient of a trade mark registration. It seems that there is a fine line between a threat of proceedings and the mere notification of the existence of a design. Those wishing to take advantage of the provision should be careful not to fo further than what is permitted as a threat may well be inferred.
The first case in relation to NFTs and copyright infringement in China was ruled on April 20, 2022, referred to (2022) Zhe 0192 Min Chu