As Huawei’s Enjoy 90 smartphone hit the market, it drew wide public attention. As a leading brand of domestic mobile phones, every new launch of Huawei garners extensive attention, and its brand value and market influence are self-evident. However, this high brand popularity has also made Huawei a target for illegal merchants seeking to "free-ride" on its fame.

Recently, a typical trademark infringement case was concluded by the Intermediate People’s Court of Meizhou City, Guangdong Province. The defendant registered the trademark "HUWEI.YB Huwei Yinbian" and authorized a technology company to sell laptops on e-commerce platforms under this mark, with a cumulative sales volume of nearly 15 million yuan.

The court ultimately ruled that the defendant constituted trademark infringement, ordering it to cease the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the adverse impact, and compensate Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 2 million yuan.

This case sounds a warning to market operators: as Huawei’s brand influence grows day by day, any attempt to "free-ride" on its reputation will come at a heavy price.

The plaintiff in this case is Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., whose "HUAWEI" trademark enjoys extremely high popularity. Defendant Shi registered the trademark "HUWEI.YB Huwei Yinbian" in 2021, and then authorized Defendant 2, a technology company, to use it on e-commerce platforms.

When selling laptops, the technology company extensively used signs such as "HUWEI" and "HUWEI.YB" in store names, product links and product detail pages, with cumulative sales of nearly 15 million yuan. Defendant Zuo was the sole shareholder of the technology company.

During the trial, on April 18, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration issued an invalidation ruling on the "HUWEI.YB Huwei Yinbian" trademark, finding that it was similar to Huawei’s prior well-known trademark "HUAWEI".

The court held that the signs "HUWEI" and "HUWEI.YB" used by the defendant were similar to Huawei’s well-known "HUAWEI" trademark in letter arrangement, visual effect and font. The products of both parties are identical (laptops), and the defendant’s acts were sufficient to cause public confusion, constituting trademark infringement.

Meanwhile, the court found that the defendant had obvious subjective malice. Given the high popularity of Huawei’s "HUAWEI" trademark, Shi failed to fulfill a reasonable duty of avoidance. Instead, he applied for and registered a highly similar trademark for the same category of goods and authorized others to use it on a large commercial scale, demonstrating clear intent to exploit Huawei’s goodwill.

In terms of liability, as the technology company was a one-person limited liability company, and its sole shareholder Zuo failed to prove that the company’s property was independent of his personal property, the court ordered Zuo to bear joint and several liability for the company’s 2 million yuan compensation.

Regarding the amount of compensation, since the plaintiff could not provide precise evidence of its actual losses or the defendant’s illegal profits, the court calculated the infringing profits using the formula of "collected sales volume × average profit margin of the industry". Considering factors such as the scale of infringement and subjective malice, the court finally ordered the defendant to compensate Huawei a total of 2 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses.

The court ruled that the defendant immediately stop using infringing signs such as "HUWEI" and "HUWEI.YB"; publish a statement in a newspaper to eliminate the adverse impact on Huawei; and compensate Huawei a total of 2 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable rights protection costs.

Neither party appealed after the first-instance judgment, and the judgment has taken effect.

The case clearly sends a signal: even if a trademark is registered formally, it will still constitute trademark infringement if it is similar to another party’s prior well-known trademark and is actually used on identical goods to cause consumer confusion. Trademark registration itself cannot be a "shield" for infringement.

The court took the defendant’s "failure to fulfill a reasonable duty of avoidance despite the high popularity of Huawei’s trademark" as a key basis for finding subjective malice, reflecting the judiciary’s negative attitude towards malicious free-riding acts.

In addition, the case also warns shareholders of one-person limited liability companies that they must strictly keep the company’s property independent of personal property, otherwise they will be jointly and severally liable for the company’s debts. In terms of compensation calculation, the court scientifically calculated infringing profits through the method of "collected sales volume × industry average profit margin", providing an operable reference for similar cases.

By ordering the infringer to cease infringement, eliminate impact and compensate for losses, the people’s court has delivered a full-scale "combination punch" to protect intellectual property rights holders, and issued a clear warning to acts attempting to "free-ride" by registering similar trademarks.

The case of "HUWEI" imitating "HUAWEI" is a vivid lesson on intellectual property rule of law. Against the background of increasingly strict intellectual property protection and continuous improvement of the punitive damages system, only by respecting innovation and operating in good faith can enterprises achieve steady development in market competition.