Charlotte Pipe tells Senate it cannot reclaim U.S. brand in Chinese courts after foreign company registered its trademark

At a Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property hearing, a Charlotte Pipe executive described a multinational trademark dispute in which a Shanghai firm registered and used the Charlotte Pipe brand in China, and Chinese adjudicators sustained that registration.

Mr. Mueller, vice president of corporate communications and government affairs for Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, told the subcommittee the family‑owned manufacturer was founded in 1909 and employs about 1,800 associates in eight U.S. plants. He said Charlotte Pipe first learned in 2017 that a company identified in testimony as Yitai Plastic Company Limited had been producing and marketing plastic pipe and fittings under the Charlotte Pipe name in China and other Asian markets.

Mueller said Yi Tai (Yitai) filed and received the Charlotte Pipe trademark in China in 2010 and that, in a February 2018 ruling, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in Beijing sustained the foreign registration. He said the Beijing intellectual property court also ruled for the registrant in subsequent proceedings and that Charlotte Pipe has appealed to the Beijing High People’s Court; Mueller said the appeal remains unresolved and described the case as "cold" in Chinese courts. He said the company has spent "hundreds of thousands" of dollars on Chinese counsel and, across IP defenses and related trade actions, "probably spent over $6,000,000."

Mueller characterized the experience as emblematic of broader enforcement challenges for U.S. companies: "From our experience, it is clear that China lacks the rule of law and the political will to hold Chinese companies accountable for blatant IP theft," he said in his opening remarks.

Senators and witnesses discussed remedies, including the bipartisan "Ending Trade Cheats" (also described in testimony as "fighting trade cheats") proposals to expand enforcement tools and private‑sector avenues for redress, as well as U.S. trade enforcement routes such as anti‑dumping and countervailing duty cases. Senators asked for documentary evidence and told Charlotte Pipe the committee would keep the record open to receive additional materials.

The company said it secured relief in Singapore litigation against the registrant, but that the Beijing proceedings have not produced a favorable final judgment.

The subcommittee heard the Charlotte Pipe account in the context of broader testimony about Chinese IP practices, industrial policy, and legislative proposals to strengthen enforcement and expedite remedies for U.S. rights holders.