Chlitina franchise contract dispute: Shanghai Xuhui court announces hearing date

A franchise contract dispute involving a beauty brand in Shanghai has appeared in the court’s public hearing schedule. A report published on 21 October by Sina Finance’s Ruiyan Studio, citing a Shanghai court notice, said that a claim brought by an individual surnamed Ding and Yihehe Beauty Salon in Huinan Town, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, against Chlitina (China) Trading Co., Ltd. was scheduled for a public hearing at Shanghai’s Xuhui District People’s Court at 9.10 am on 21 October 2026.

Notice identifies the parties and hearing arrangements

The notice names Ding and Yihehe Beauty Salon in Huinan Town, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, as the claimants, and Chlitina (China) Trading Co., Ltd. as the defendant. The case is classified as a franchise contract dispute, with case number (2026) 沪0104民初3235号. The hearing is scheduled to take place in Courtroom 11 of Shanghai’s Xuhui District People’s Court.

For those involved in or considering franchising in China, these details provide a way to identify the specific case. When following developments, readers should cross-check the parties’ names, court and case number to avoid confusing separate commercial relationships or proceedings involving the same brand.

A scheduled hearing does not establish liability

The publicly available information concerns hearing arrangements, not a judgment. The notice does not disclose the specific claims, the amount in dispute or the contractual terms. Nor does it set out either party’s account or evidence concerning performance of the agreement.

It is therefore not possible to determine from the notice whether the dispute concerns refunds of franchise fees, supply arrangements, training support or termination of the contract. Nor does a company’s inclusion as a defendant establish that it has breached a contract. A hearing listing is also no substitute for checking whether the hearing took place and what the court ultimately decided.

Identify the legal entity and avoid broader assumptions

The defendant in this case is Chlitina (China) Trading Co., Ltd., not Chlitina outlets generally. Corporate information cited in the report states that the company was established on 14 November 2006, is registered as a limited liability company wholly owned by a corporate entity from Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan, and has its registered address in Shanghai’s Xuhui District.

These details help identify the entity involved in the proceedings, but do not by themselves establish the scope of authorisation under the disputed contract, the obligations to be performed or the allocation of liability. Those considering beauty-service franchises should distinguish between the brand name, the legal entity signing the contract and the entity operating the outlet. The parties named in this notice should not be taken to imply that other outlets face similar disputes.

Keep verifiable records of franchise arrangements

At this stage, the confirmed information is limited to the parties, the nature of the dispute and the scheduled hearing. It is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the court’s view of any particular business model. If a judgment is subsequently made public, the specific contractual provisions, each party’s performance and the court’s reasoning will be central to understanding the case.

Practical guidance: franchise operators should check the full legal name of the company on their contract and retain payment records, authorisation documents and correspondence relating to contractual performance. When following litigation news, distinguish between a hearing notice and a legally effective judgment. A single hearing listing is not a substitute for comprehensive due diligence on a prospective business partner.