cease-desist

/cease-desist

Two modes. Choose one:

/ip-legal:cease-desist --send — Draft a warning letter, calibrated to your enforcement posture. Run the loud gates before sending.
/ip-legal:cease-desist --receive — Triage a received warning letter. Produce an options memorandum with a recommendation.

Instructions

Read the practice profile. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md. If it contains placeholders, stop and prompt to run /ip-legal:cold-start-interview。
Check the matter workspace.
Dispatch according to parameters: --send Run send mode.--receive Run receive mode. Ask once when there are no parameters.
Respect the gates. In send mode, loud gates run before the draft is written to disk. Do not skip them.
Respect the approval matrix. From ## 执法姿态 → 审批矩阵 extract the approver for the warning letter line. Extract the automatic escalation conditions. Present both in the gates.
Hand off appropriately. In receive mode, if the recommendation is to respond firmly, offer a link into send mode. If the recommendation is to preempt with a declaratory action of non-infringement or an invalidation, escalate to outside counsel per the practice profile—do not draft.

Examples

/ip-legal:cease-desist --send
/ip-legal:cease-desist --receive ~/Downloads/收函-acme.pdf
/ip-legal:cease-desist

Purpose

An infringement warning letter asserts a legal right and demands that someone stop doing something. It is one of the most important letters sent or received in IP practice. Sending one is the first step toward litigation—the recipient can file a declaratory action of non-infringement in the jurisdiction of its choice, and an excessive or malicious assertion can be used against the sender. Receiving one starts a clock and forces a decision. This skill handles both sides with the guardrails that decision deserves.

Outbound documents (send mode): The drafted warning letter is sent to the opposing party. On outbound letters,do notinclude 保密 — 律师工作成果letterhead. Internal drafts, pre-send summaries, and triage memoranda retain that letterhead.

Jurisdiction assumptions

Intellectual property rights are territorial—a Chinese registered trademark's protection is limited to mainland China. Copyright is multilateral under international conventions (Berne Convention), but enforcement and statutory damages (Copyright Law Article 54 [法条原文]) depend on local law. This skill assumes the jurisdiction stated in the matter or practice profile. If the infringing act, opposing party, or forum is in another jurisdiction, flag it—this draft may not directly apply.

Load context

Practice profile → ## 执法姿态、## IP实践档案、## 输出、## 谁在使用
Any warning letter template or enforcement playbook referenced by a seed document in the practice profile
Matter context

Send mode — Draft an infringement warning letter

Step 1: Identify the right

Which intellectual property right are we asserting?

Trademark — Is it registered? Where (CNIPA/other countries)? Registration number and class? Or is it only an unregistered well-known trademark (first use date, geographic scope, evidence of fame)?

Copyright — Is it registered? Title of the work, registration number, date? Or unregistered (note: Chinese copyright registration is voluntary registration and can serve as prima facie evidence, Article 7 of the Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Copyright Civil Dispute Cases)?

Patent — Invention, utility model, or design? Patent number, grant date?

Multiple — Identify separately.

Step 2: Identify the Infringing Act

Describe the infringing act with specific facts rather than adjectives:

Whois doing it — entity name, individual, platform account?

What— the accused infringing trademark, the accused plagiarized work, the accused infringing product? Attach samples or descriptions.

Where— website URL, e-commerce platform link, physical retail, social media?

Since When— date first observed, earliest date of use you can document?

Evidence— screenshots, purchase records, monitoring service leads, consumer confusion reports?

Step 3: Identify the Relationship

What is the relationship between us and the recipient?

Competitor(direct or indirect) — standard posture applies

Distributor/Channel Partner — tone adjusted; consider the soft letter path

Former Licensee/Former Employee/Former Partner — Contract terms may apply; cite them

Stranger/Random Infringer — standard

Current Customer/Partner — escalate automatically per practice profile; flag before drafting

Step 4: Identify the Demands

What does the client actually want?

Cease — stop infringing use

Provide Information — report sales, profits, volume

Destroy — destroy or recall infringing products

Compensate — monetary compensation

Transfer/Assign — transfer domain name, hand over account, assign the accused mark or work

Public Correction — delete infringing content, public statement

Written Confirmation — commit to compliance by a certain date

Parallel platform complaint path (e-commerce platform infringement). If the accused act is on an e-commerce platform (Taobao, Tmall, JD.com, Pinduoduo, Douyin E-commerce, Kuaishou Store, etc.), flag the platform intellectual property protection complaint path as a faster, cheaper parallel path. Under Articles 42-43 of the E-Commerce Law [法条原文], the platform shall, after receiving the notice, take necessary measures such as deletion, blocking, and disabling links, and forward the notice. Platform complaints usually resolve within days; a warning letter gives the infringer time to sell inventory during negotiations. The two paths are not mutually exclusive — recommend submitting both when the conduct is primarily platform-based.

Step 5: Calibrate to Enforcement Posture

Read the default posture in the practice profile and apply it.

Step 5.5: Counterparty Due Diligence — Mandatory Prerequisite

Before drafting, run counterparty due diligence and present the results to the user. Every warning letter carries exposure to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement / bad-faith litigation risk, depending on who the recipient is. The skill does not draft a warning letter until the user has reviewed the due diligence and confirmed they still want to fight this battle.

Collect and present: legal entity, size and resources, intellectual property portfolio, litigation history, attorney situation, risk of a declaratory action of non-infringement, relationship risk.

Present in chat as a brief summary memorandum,do not continue drafting before the user interacts with this due diligence block。

Step 6: Drafting

The drafting structure follows Chinese practice conventions:

Sender/letterhead and date
Recipient information
Subject — concise, without disclosing confidential strategy
Statement of rights — Trademark: registration number, class, fame; Copyright: title of work, registration information; Patent: patent number
Facts of infringement — specific description of conduct, with evidence
Legal basis — Trademark Law Article 57/Article 63 [法条原文], Copyright Law Articles 52-53 [法条原文], Patent Law Article 11/Article 65 [法条原文], Anti-Unfair Competition Law Article 6, etc.
Demands — numbered, specific, proportionate
Deadline — calendar date, manner of confirmation
Consequences of non-compliance — calibrated to posture (litigation, administrative complaint, platform complaint, etc.)
Evidence preservation requirements
Statement of reservation of rights
Signature block

Drafting rules: Specific rather than adjectives; do not overclaim; cite as placeholders until verified; consequence language matches posture.

Step 7: Loud gate before sending

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  在此警告函到达任何地方之前                                  │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                             │
│  这是供律师审核的草稿 — 非发送就绪的函件。发送侵权警告函    │
│  是法律权利的主张，具有真实后果：                            │
│                                                             │
│  · 它可触发对收件人有利的管辖地的确认不侵权之诉。            │
│    有资金的收件人可将警告函用作选择敌对管辖地的邀请。        │
│                                                             │
│  · 过度或恶意的主张可被用于反制发送人 — 商业诋毁、           │
│    不正当竞争、恶意诉讼等反制主张。                          │
│                                                             │
│  · 它启动了不一定能廉价和解的争议。                          │
│                                                             │
│  函件发出前确认：                                          │
│                                                             │
│    1. 所主张的权利有效 — 注册权利来自注册簿（非假设）。      │
│    2. 主张有合理基础 — 理性的执业者在此事实上会作出主张。    │
│    3. 诉求相称 — 我们要求的救济与行为相匹配。               │
│    4. 有权启动争议的人已批准。                              │
│    5. 对方当事人尽职调查（第5.5步）已呈现并确认。            │
│                                                             │
│  审批人按你的实践档案：[审批人姓名/角色]                     │
│                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

For non-lawyer users, attach a lawyer consultation reminder.

Step 8: Output

Write to the matter folder or practice output folder. Use the docx skill. Present the draft in chat as plain text for review.

Receiving mode — triage a received warning letter

Step 1: Read the incoming letter

Extract: sender, recipient, method and date of service, rights asserted, alleged conduct, legal basis (cited statutory provisions), demands, threats, tone.

Step 2: Assess the claims

Validity of rights. Does the asserted registration exist and is it valid? (Check CNIPA trademark announcements, China Copyright Protection Center, CNIPA patent announcements — flag any that appear dormant or invalid.)
Reasonableness of confusion/similarity/infringement. On the alleged facts, is this a reasonably grounded claim or far-fetched? Trademark: likelihood of confusion (Trademark Law Article 57). Copyright: access + substantial similarity. Patent: all-elements rule + equivalents. Flag where the claim is weakest.
Whether it is excessive. Are they demanding more than the legitimate scope of the conduct?
Time limits. Statute of limitations (Civil Code Article 188, three years [法条原文]), rights timeline — flag any date issues on the face of the letter.
Jurisdiction. Where would they sue? Do we have an opportunity for a declaratory action of non-infringement against them?

Step 3: Assess our exposure

Are we actually infringing? An honest review.
Can we easily stop? Cost of compliance vs. cost of fighting.
Credibility of the sender. Professional rights enforcer/genuine rights claimant?

Step 4: Options

A — Quick compliance | When the claim has merit, compliance cost is low, and it is not worth fighting. B — Negotiation | There are commercial solutions in the middle ground (licensing, coexistence, renaming timeline). C — Firm response (reject) | When their claim is weak, excessive, or factually wrong. D — Ignore (and preserve) | When the claim is absurd and the sender lacks the ability to sue. E — Proactively file a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement | When facing genuine commercial uncertainty and the claim is weak. F — Apply for invalidation of the right (trademark invalidation/patent invalidation) | When their right itself is fragile.

Recommend one option with a two-sentence rationale.

Step 5: Deadline triage

The deadline they state — note it, but it does not legally bind us.
Our internal decision deadline.
Legal deadlines — statute of limitations, contractual cure periods.

Step 6: Draft the triage memorandum

Output to the matter folder. Include: claim summary, validity of the right, legal bases cited, reasonableness assessment, our exposure, options and recommendation, deadlines, immediate actions.

Decision posture

Per the decision posture in the practice file: when uncertain whether infringement exists, whether similarity exists, whether the claim is reasonable, or whether sending is safe — do not default to treating it as safe. Flag for attorney review, present the factors on both sides, and note the uncertainty. Sending a warning letter on an assumed basis is a one-way street; presenting doubts is a two-way street.

What this skill does not do

Send letters. Draft only. The user sends after approval.
Research citations. Placeholders remain placeholders unless the user provides authority or a connected research tool returns it.
Bypass the gate. The send-mode gate runs every time.
Make a final determination on the substantive issues on the receiving side. The rating is structured reading for routing; formal substantive opinions are made by an attorney.
Do not verify the law cited by the sender. Flag it for the user; do not independently determine whether the claim is valid or invalid.