Tianjin Binhai New Area People's Court held that the two defendants constituted trademark infringement and should pay compensation to Lexington. However, both Lexington and Fusite appealed to Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court. Recently, Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court made final judgment that Laikexingdun Tianjin should stop using "Lexington" business name.

Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court held that, after the termination of contarct bewteen Lexington and Fusite, the two defendants still used the registered "Lexington" trademark without permission, which constituted infringement of registered "Lexington" trademark and unfair competition. Fusite's continuing use of the domain name is sufficient to cause confusion and misidentification among the consumers, which also constituted unfair competition. And the domain name should be transferred to Lexington for free. In addition, the court also held that "Lexington" business name has a certain reputation in Chinese market, after the termination of contract, Laikexingdun Tianjin continued to use of the above business name, which was enough to cause public confusion and misidentification, so Laikexingdun Tianjin should stop using the "Lexington" character in the business name. Accordingly, Tianjin Second Intermediate People's Court made the final judgment.