The Aranya Chapel, situated on the seashore of the Aranya community in Beidaihe New District, Qinhuangdao, has become a celebrated cultural and tourism landmark. With its pure minimalist aesthetics, unique spatial narrative, and poetic dialogue with the coastal environment, it has drawn countless visitors, celebrities, and social media influencers, and has gone viral across online platforms.
In March 2024, Aranya discovered that many users on the Rednote platform had posted “check-in” photos of a chapel located in a commercial district in Xinxiang City, accompanied by keywords such as “Xinxiang Aranya.” This sparked widespread discussion. The chapel in question (hereinafter the “Infringing Building”) almost completely replicated the design of the Aranya Chapel, thereby infringing Aranya copyright in the architectural work.
Seeking to promptly put an end to the infringement, Aranya engaged CHISPO to take legal action. After a cease-and-desist letter to the defendant, Jingkaili Company, yielded no results, we filed a lawsuit with the local court on the grounds that the defendant had infringed Aranya’s copyright in an architectural work.
The case proceeded through first-instance, second-instance, and retrial proceedings (with the findings of each court summarized in the table below), ultimately resulting in a final judgment ordering the defendant to demolish the Infringing Building. According to public records, this is the first known case in China in which a court has ordered the demolition of an infringing building in an architectural copyright dispute.
Aranya’s primary objective in this case was to obtain an order for the demolition of the Infringing Building so as to promptly stop the infringement. Given the generally high cost of constructing buildings and the fact that all prior cases had ordered modification rather than demolition, persuading the court to support our demolition claim was both the focus and the difficulty of this case. In fact, both the second-instance and retrial judges approached the demolition remedy with considerable caution during the proceedings. However, by fully substantiating the reasonableness of demolition from the following perspectives, CHISPO ultimately secured the court’s support.
1.From an enforcement perspective, modification is not practicable
The first-instance judgment ordered Jingkaili to “modify” the Infringing Building within a reasonable period but failed to specify a clear deadline or designate an authority to review the modification results, making the order unenforceable. The defendant could indefinitely delay, claiming it was still within the “reasonable period,” or could present a “modified” version that still constituted substantial similarity—rendering the judgment a dead letter.
Even if a specific deadline and review authority were set, modification would still lack enforceability if the defendant refused to act, and the infringement would remain unremedied.
2. From an economic perspective, modification costs would exceed demolition costs
First, our site inspection revealed that the Infringing Building was constructed using inexpensive, easily dismantled materials, and that its overall construction cost was low; the defendant admitted during trial that the cost was only RMB 60,000.
Second, because the Infringing Building almost completely replicated the Aranya Chapel’s design, modifying it to a non-infringing form would require a full redesign and reconstruction of its structure and appearance—technically challenging and likely to cost more than the original construction—resulting in wasteful duplication of resources.
Third, the defendant admitted the building had no actual functional use. Since the structure served no substantive purpose, demolition would not cause any real harm.
Finally, while economic factors should be considered, they must not override the fundamental goal of effectively stopping infringement. Overemphasizing cost savings at the expense of enforcement would risk encouraging infringement, contrary to the core purpose and policy orientation of intellectual property law.
3.From the perspective of intent, the defendant lacked genuine willingness to modify
The defendant never consulted Aranya about any modification plan and, before the first-instance judgment had taken effect, unilaterally carried out a so-called “modification.” This consisted merely of adding transparent glass panels to the lower rear side of the building, without altering the main structure or external form. Even in the retrial stage, the “modified” design submitted by the defendant left the infringing features intact.
The choice to install glass beneath the main structure was itself unreasonable: as a fragile material, glass would likely break if any structural changes were made to the upper part of the building, effectively preventing any substantive modification in the future. This further demonstrated that the defendant had no real intention of ending the infringement through modification.
In sum, modification was not a feasible way to eliminate the infringement; demolition of the Infringing Building was the only viable and effective remedy.
Because buildings involve high investment and long construction timelines, cases involving infringement of architectural works are rare. Prior decisions have generally favored ordering modification over demolition, as modification is perceived as more consistent with economic principles. However, modification orders often take a long time to implement and are difficult to enforce, which can allow infringement to continue.
As the first case in China to order demolition of an infringing building, this decision is significant in two respects: It ensures swift cessation of infringement, deters infringers, and offers stronger protection for rights holders, thereby promoting a positive social policy orientation. It provides a new judicial approach and practical pathway for handling similar cases in the future.
