Recently, in a batch of typical cases of unfair competition announced by the Supreme People's Court, a case involving the unauthorized use of the "Huawei" trademark for live streaming sales has attracted widespread attention.
In this case, the two defendants were found to have committed trademark infringement and unfair competition by prominently using Huawei trademarks and related logos in short videos and live broadcasts, and were sentenced to bear three times the punitive damages.
This judgment fully demonstrates the importance that the judiciary attaches to the protection of well-known brands, and also sends a clear signal to the market to regulate live streaming sales behavior and severely punish "free riding" unfair competition.
The "Huawei" series of trademarks involved in the case have been approved for use in mobile phones and other goods. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., as the rights holder, has achieved a high level of recognition for its trademarks and corporate names after long-term operation and promotion, and some of its trademarks have been recognized as well-known trademarks.
In this context, Da Mou Company and its former shareholder and legal representative Zhang, without authorization from Huawei, released a large amount of short video content with Huawei trademarks through multiple short video accounts under its control, serving as the main entry point for live streaming traffic.
After attracting users to click and enter the live broadcast, the defendant further deliberately imitated the visual style of Huawei's physical stores in various aspects such as background decoration, anchor attire, language behavior, and product display, continuously strengthening the use of the "Huawei" trademark and related logos, in order to mislead consumers and sell digital products of other brands.
Huawei believes that this behavior seriously infringes on its trademark rights and constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, it has filed a lawsuit with the Qujiang District People's Court in Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province, requesting to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.1 million yuan.
The first instance court determined that the actions of Da and Zhang constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and based on the commission earned through live streaming sales during the infringement period, applied triple punitive damages, fully supporting Huawei's compensation request.
The defendant is dissatisfied with the judgment and appeals to the Intermediate People's Court of Quzhou City, Zhejiang Province.
During the appeal process, Da Company and Zhang argued that:
1. The defendant company promoted Huawei products in the live broadcast room and did not use the Huawei trademark in other brand sales. They emphasized that the actual trademark was clearly marked in the product link and would not cause confusion for consumers.
2. The defendant company has completely stopped using Huawei elements in the live broadcast room in the later stage, and there is no subjective intention of infringement.
However, the Quzhou Intermediate People's Court, after the second instance trial, found that although the defendant did sell a small number of Huawei phones, their use of the Huawei trademark clearly exceeded the reasonable and legitimate indicative use scope, and the overall behavior constituted a systematic attachment to the reputation of the well-known trademark.
Whether in the stage of short video drainage or in the overall visual and linguistic design of live streaming rooms, their behavior is sufficient to cause confusion among the public and constitute trademark infringement. At the same time, the relevant behavior also constitutes the unauthorized use of enterprise names and product names that have a certain influence on others, which constitutes confusion prohibited by Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law.
In addition, the second instance court determined that the first instance judgment was based on the commission for infringement, taking into account factors such as the popularity of the Huawei trademark, the nature and scale of the infringement, the subjective intention of the perpetrator, and the severity of the circumstances. Therefore, the application of triple punitive damages was reasonable and well founded, and the appeal was rejected, and the original judgment was upheld.


The conclusion of this case not only strengthens the judicial protection of well-known trademarks in live streaming scenes, but also provides important guidance for the compliance boundary of online marketing behavior, which helps to promote the healthy and orderly development of the live streaming e-commerce industry.