Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026

Yujian Xiaomian sued a couple-run noodle shop for its name — then gave the trademark away

Listed noodle chain 遇见小面 sued a Henan couple-shop named 渝见小面 for ~¥8,000. The 'big brand vs small shop' backlash forced an apology and a free trademark.

Yujian Xiaomian (遇见小面)

What happened

In June 2026, listed noodle chain 遇见小面 (Yujian Xiaomian), acting through an outsourced law firm, sued a couple-run shop in Nanyang, Henan called 渝见小面 (Yujian Xiaomian) for trademark infringement. The lawyer said the couple could end it by paying a settlement of roughly ¥7,000–8,000.

The owner 毛女士 (Ms. Mao) told reporters: '我八块钱一碗的面,我至少得卖1000碗' — a bowl costs ¥8, so she would have to sell more than a thousand bowls. The contrast between a listed company's legal demand and a small shop's daily takings went viral as a big brand bullying an individual trader.

On June 13 遇见小面 said it had instructed a withdrawal and would review its enforcement process. On June 15 founder Song Qi published an open letter apologising, donating the registered class-35 '渝见小面' trademark to the couple free of charge, and ending cooperation with the outsourced law firm. Some members still cancelled even their small stored-value balances as a further show of displeasure.

Why it happened

  • The sum was the story: demanding ~¥8,000 from a couple earning it bowl by bowl read as a giant crushing a small shop.
  • No one priced the optics: a listed chain enforcing a defensive trademark against a two-person restaurant was never going to look fair.
  • The apology was only as good as the gesture: donating the trademark and firing the law firm converted words into proof.
  • Outsourcing litigation removed the judgement: the letter was sent in the brand's name, so the brand owned the backlash it caused.
What it costSuit withdrawn; trademark donated free; law firm firedcostly

The lesson

Enforcing a trademark is a public act. When the defendant is a couple-run shop and the claim looks predatory, the court of public opinion rules before the court does.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →