Reaping a Lawsuit: A Farmer, a Tech Giant, and a Trademark Battle Over Millet

In the final weeks of 2025, a story unfolded in China that felt colder than the winter weather. A dispute centered on the word “millet” (xiǎomǐ) thrust a village official dedicated to helping farmers and a multi-billion-dollar tech giant into the eye of a public storm. This was no simple business conflict; it was a mirror reflecting the complex tensions between law, commerce, and public sentiment in the digital age. Above all, it highlighted the suffocating power imbalance when the legal might of capital is wielded against an ordinary person.

The Incident: A Well-Intentioned Imitation

In Weihai, Shandong, village official Feng Yukuan was facing a classic agricultural dilemma: 20 tons of unsold millet that represented his community’s livelihood. In an era dominated by short-form video, he chose a savvy and contemporary solution: he began creating content channeling the signature stage presence of Xiaomi’s celebrity founder, Lei Jun, to promote his local grain.

His videos, capturing Lei Jun’s tone and mannerisms to praise the virtues of the literal, edible millet, were a viral hit. It was a heartwarming story of digital ingenuity meeting rural needs. But the success was short-lived. A complaint for “trademark infringement” from Xiaomi’s legal department led to all his promotional videos being summarily removed from the platform. Shortly after, rumors of a crippling 70-million-yuan lawsuit fanned the flames of public outrage. Though the figure was likely an exaggeration, the act of taking down the videos was enough to make people ask: why would a corporate behemoth get into a direct dispute with a farmer just trying to sell his grain?

A Phenomenon Worthy of Reflection: Wielding Legal Force Against the Powerless

This is the most thought-provoking aspect of the entire affair. Admittedly, for a global brand like Xiaomi, protecting its trademark—a tremendously valuable asset—from dilution and malicious exploitation, whether it’s the company’s brand or the personal brand of its CEO Lei Jun, is the unambiguous duty of a corporate legal department. This is beyond reproach. However, this legal crusade also appeared to extend into an absolutist defense of founder Lei Jun’s personal brand itself. Reportedly, another key reason for the complaint was the assertion that Feng Yukuan’s imitation of Lei Jun’s presentation style infringed upon the CEO’s personal image rights and their associated commercial value. This pushes the controversy to a more precarious territory: Is this a case of over-litigation?

Can a public figure’s signature gestures and tone in a public setting be claimed as a legally protected “portrait”? Such a notion would likely be considered untenable in most legal systems globally. This conservative, control-oriented mindset may, in fact, reflect a deeper issue. It might help explain a paradox within China’s tech industry: the industry is exceptionally skilled at the “1-to-100” phase—scaling, optimizing, and mass-producing existing technologies to become unparalleled “second-hand dealers” of innovation. Yet, it often falters when it comes to the “0-to-1” breakthrough. When a society’s prevailing mood leans conservative, innovation’s spark can be inadvertently extinguished.

Returning to the event itself, “millet” is both a registered trademark and a household crop. When legal lines blur, immense legal resources become a crushing force. For an ordinary person like Feng Yukuan, who lacks a team of lawyers and a deep understanding of complex trademark law, all he had was a simple desire to help his neighbors and a smartphone. In this lopsided battle, he had virtually no power to negotiate and could only record a video apologizing to Xiaomi and the public, asking them to “show mercy.”

A Warning for the Future of Rural Commerce

Feng Yukuan’s live-streaming sales effort was a small but vivid experiment in leveraging digital tools to forge new paths for traditional agriculture. This “infringement” storm, however, has undoubtedly cast a chilling effect over countless other “new farmers” like him. If even selling millet this way risks a legal challenge, what does the future hold for the branding and online promotion of agricultural products?

Despite Xiaomi’s subsequent statement claiming that rumors of it “banning the sale of millet” were malicious and false, and clarifying that its actions targeted bad-faith merchants, the damage was done. In the court of public opinion, the company’s initial heavy-handed approach had already created a lasting negative impression. This incident became a costly public lesson, not only for content creators on the importance of respecting brand boundaries but also as a stark warning to all major corporations.

In today’s social ecosystem, the use of legal tools cannot be guided by cold compliance alone; it must be tempered with an understanding of public sentiment. How to balance commercial interests with social responsibility, and how to exercise immense power with restraint and empathy, are questions every corporate giant must continually answer. After all, the same water that floats a boat can also sink it.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this report is based on publicly available news, social media reports, and third-party industry analysis. AutoChina Intelligence does not claim these as absolute facts but as a reflection of current industry discourse and documented media trends. Readers are encouraged to verify information through official regulatory channels.