Repeat Infringement Triggers Punitive Damages—Winnie the Pooh Wins RMB 1 Million!
The Nanhu District People’s Court of Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, has handed down a judgment on a malicious, repeat trademark-infringement case. The infringer, Mr. Lu, was ordered to pay the rights holder RMB 1 million in economic damages and reasonable enforcement costs, while a second infringer, Mr. Li, was held jointly and severally liable for RMB 500,000 of that amount.
The well-known apparel brand “TEENIE WEENIE” (marketed in China as “维尼熊”)—recognized for its iconic bear motif and retro collegiate style—is owned by Jinhong Fashion Group Co., Ltd. Sweet & You (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. holds an exclusive license to use the trademarks and to pursue infringement actions independently.
Sweet & You discovered that Mr. Lu, without authorization, was selling large volumes of counterfeit goods through a Taobao store and a linked WeChat account, causing serious harm to the brand. Crucially, when the rights holder gathered notarized evidence, it found the online shop operated by Mr. Lu was almost identical—in page design, marketing language, and linked WeChat ID—to a store previously sued (and settled) for infringement by Mr. Li.
Earlier, Mr. Li had been sued for selling infringing “TEENIE WEENIE” products on Taobao. The case ended in a settlement under which Mr. Li promised to cease infringement and paid RMB 240,000 in damages. The settlement agreement also stipulated that any future breach or repeat infringement would trigger an additional RMB 500,000 penalty.
Sweet & You argued that both Mr. Lu and Mr. Li acted with clear malice in an egregious manner and sued, demanding RMB 1 million from Mr. Lu and joint liability of RMB 500,000 from Mr. Li.
The court established the following key facts:
-
Immediately after delisting the infringing goods, Mr. Li posted a “new store” announcement expressly directing customers to the WeChat account later proven to belong to Mr. Lu—evidence of an intentional shift of infringing channels.
-
Notarized evidence showed the WeChat account was registered in Mr. Lu’s real name and continued to sell infringing products, constituting joint infringement with Mr. Li providing assistance.
-
Mr. Li’s post-settlement “store-switching and traffic diversion” behavior constituted repeat infringement with obvious subjective malice.
The court found that Mr. Lu’s Taobao store hosted numerous infringing links with substantial sales volume, further amplified via WeChat, resulting in wide-ranging and serious harm. Taking into account the fame of the trademarks and profit margins in the apparel sector, the court awarded the full RMB 1 million sought by the plaintiff.
As for Mr. Li, his active redirection of customers to the infringing channel after settlement amounted to both repeat infringement and joint infringement. Pursuant to the settlement’s explicit clause on repeat infringement, the court ordered Mr. Li to bear joint and several liability for RMB 500,000 of the total damages.
Punitive damages in intellectual-property law serve the triple functions of compensation, deterrence, and punishment. Malicious and repeat infringement are classic scenarios for their application.
