Supor controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile7 entries
2026
AI-generated suggestive advertising controversy
Media reports said an authorized Supor personal-care-appliance flagship store published AI-generated videos depicting people intruding into bathrooms and toilets, with suggestive wording used to promote a steam-cleaning appliance. Supor stated that the videos were removed after the issue was identified and acknowledged deficiencies in authorized-store content management and review procedures.
2021
Court orders Kangbach to pay Supor RMB 3 million
Ruling
In a commercial-disparagement case brought by Supor, a first-instance judgment ordered Kangbach to pay RMB 3 million and to eliminate the impact through the original channels, according to the article. The court stated that when Kangbach published its allegations, no judicial ruling or administrative decision had established that Supor infringed Kangbach's patent rights. The report describes the ruling as a first-instance judgment in the case.
The article reports that a first-instance judgment in Supor's commercial-disparagement case ordered Kangbach to pay RMB 3 million and eliminate the impact through the original channels. The court said no judicial ruling or administrative decision had established Supor's patent infringement when Kangbach published its allegations.
Source excerpt
就在近日，事情的发展走向让不少人大跌眼镜——康巴赫起诉苏泊尔一案被法院驳回后，苏泊尔起诉康巴赫商业诋毁案做出了一审判决，康巴赫被判赔300万元，并按原路径消除影响。
问题关键在于，巴赫公司发布上诉信息时，并无任何司法裁判或行政决定认定苏泊尔公司构成对巴赫公司专利权的侵害。
2019
SUPOR recalled KC38BQ/KC45BQ thermos cups
Recall announced
Wuhan SUPOR Cookware Co. filed a recall plan covering 30,100 SUPOR KC38BQ/KC45BQ thermos cups made in the specified production periods. The recall was recorded as a controversy note concerning the SUPOR brand. The filing identifies the recalling entity, the affected product models, and the number of units within the scope of the plan. No further details on causes, remedies, or outcomes are included in the available event record.
Company response
Recall — SUPOR
将自即日起，召回2017年4月、2018年2月23日-2018年4月30日、2018年9月生产的“SUPOR”牌KC38BQ/KC45BQ保温杯，涉及数量为30100件。
Source excerpt
将自即日起，召回2017年4月、2018年2月23日-2018年4月30日、2018年9月生产的“SUPOR”牌KC38BQ/KC45BQ保温杯，涉及数量为30100件。
2019
SUPOR recalls 25,300 electric kettles
Recall announced
SUPOR filed a recall plan with China’s State Administration for Market Regulation for 25,300 SW-15T66C electric kettles manufactured from March 4 to March 6, 2019, because the kettle spout may have sharp edges. Consumers were advised to stop using affected products and contact the company for free repairs.
Company response
Recall — 苏泊尔
苏泊尔将自即日起在官方网站（www.supor.com.cn ）上发布召回计划，提示持有受影响产品的消费者停止使用该产品并联系浙江绍兴苏泊尔电器有限公司进行免费维修。
Source excerpt
苏泊尔将自即日起在官方网站（www.supor.com.cn ）上发布召回计划，提示持有受影响产品的消费者停止使用该产品并联系浙江绍兴苏泊尔电器有限公司进行免费维修。
近日，浙江绍兴苏泊尔生活电器公司（以下简称“苏泊尔”）向国家市场监督管理总局备案召回计划，自即日起，召回2019年3月4日至2019年3月6日期间生产的“SUPOR”牌SW-15T66C电水壶，涉及数量为25300台。
2019
Kangbach sues Supor over honeycomb non-stick patent
Lawsuit filed
Kangbach alleged that Supor’s honeycomb-series frying pans used its honeycomb non-stick patent technology and constituted serious infringement; the article reports a lawsuit over the dispute.
Source excerpt
为此，康巴赫方面认为，苏泊尔蜂窝系列炒锅涉嫌严重侵权使用康巴赫蜂窝不粘锅的专利技术。
近日，德国锅具品牌康巴赫对苏泊尔提起诉讼，起诉苏泊尔侵害其发明专利。
目前该事件尚未解决，还待后续发展。
2012
Report on manganese content in stainless steel cookware sparks material standard and safety controversy
In February 2012, a related CCTV report triggered controversy over the manganese content of Supor stainless steel cookware. The company denied violating mandatory standards and emphasized that material content, migration levels, and recommended standards should not be conflated; the media interviewed different expert opinions. This entry records both sides of the controversy and does not directly characterize the manganese content report as meaning that all products are toxic or illegal.
Reported misleading blender advertising penalty
A supplied media report stated that advertising for a Supor “fully silent” blender was found to constitute misleading promotion and resulted in a reported regulatory fine of 3.48 million yuan. The underlying official decision was not supplied, so the amount and legal characterization require verification.