Honor Trademark Infringement Final Ruling: Compensation Jumped from ¥12 Million to ¥30 Million
On April 20, 2026, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued the final judgment No. (2026) Hu 73 Min Zhong No.143 in the trademark infringement dispute filed by Honor Device Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Honor) against multiple tech companies and individuals based in Shenzhen. The court overturned the first-instance compensation award of 12 million yuan and fully upheld Honor’s claim for 30 million yuan in damages. This landmark case sets a benchmark for punitive damages against malicious trademark infringement in the consumer electronics industry, clarifying strict judicial standards for repeated, willful free-riding on well-known brands.
I. Case Facts: Large-Scale Malicious Free-Riding on Well-Known Trademark
Honor is the registered owner of Trademark No.10638363 “Honor”, registered for mobile phones, computers, tablets and other products. Thanks to long-term commercial operation, the trademark enjoys extremely high market recognition, has been included in Guangdong Provincial Key Trademark Protection List, and has been recognized as a well-known trademark in multiple judicial rulings.
From 2022 to 2023, seven infringing parties opened dozens of online stores on mainstream e-commerce platforms including JD.com, Douyin and Kuaishou, selling a large volume of laptops marked with the sign “Honor Jianwu”. The infringers prominently featured the core word “Honor” across store names, product titles, physical goods and promotional pages, deliberately free-riding on Honor’s brand goodwill and easily confusing consumers.
Judicial investigation confirmed that total sales of infringing products exceeded 180 million yuan, triggering massive consumer complaints and severely damaging Honor’s brand reputation and market order. Notably, some infringers had reached a settlement with Honor and promised to stop infringement in 2023, yet failed to comply with the agreement. On November 9, 2023, they received a trademark invalidation ruling from the National Intellectual Property Administration, which confirmed their sign had no legitimate legal basis and constituted infringement. Even so, they kept stocking and selling counterfeit goods. New sales generated after the ruling alone reached nearly 29 million yuan, demonstrating extreme subjective malice and aggravated infringement circumstances.
II. Divergence Between First and Second Instance Judgments: Defining Criteria for Punitive Damages
The court of first instance held that “Honor Jianwu” shared highly similar core wording with Honor’s registered trademark and constituted trademark infringement. However, it declined to apply punitive damages and only awarded 12 million yuan in compensation, on the grounds that the defendants once held a formally valid “Honor Jianwu” trademark, making absolute malice hard to verify, and infringement profits could not be accurately calculated. Honor filed an appeal against the ruling.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court clarified judicial standards on appeal and confirmed the case fully meets the statutory conditions for punitive damages. The court identified multiple malicious acts by the defendants: continuing infringement after reaching a settlement, mass sales of infringing goods even after receiving the trademark invalidation ruling, evading liability by changing store operators, concealing revenues and transferring frozen funds. Such conduct qualifies as typical willful, repeated and large-scale infringement. Taking the staggering infringement scale of over 180 million yuan into consideration, the appellate court revised the judgment and fully supported Honor’s 30 million-yuan compensation claim.
III. Core Industry Takeaways: No Tolerance for Malicious Infringement Under Strengthened IP Protection
The surge in compensation from 12 million to 30 million yuan is far more than a numerical adjustment. It represents a firm judicial crackdown on commercial acts such as brand free-riding and persistent infringement, delivering two key signals to the industry:
-
Protection for well-known and high-reputation brands has been comprehensively upgraded. Enterprises shall not attempt to free-ride on established brands by adding suffixes or combining words to create new trademarks. Even if a formally valid trademark was once registered, acts intended to confuse consumers and improperly exploit brand goodwill will still be deemed infringement and subject to heavy compensation, with no legal loopholes available.
-
Repeated and continuous infringement directly triggers punitive damages. Courts will no longer tolerate speculative conduct such as breaching settlement agreements or continuing infringement after receiving trademark invalidation rulings. Willful evasion and large-scale illegal profits will be identified as aggravated circumstances and subject to multiplied penalties.
IV. Practical Trademark Compliance & Rights Protection Suggestions for Enterprises
Drawing on this final ruling, we sort out actionable risk control strategies for brand owners:
Enterprises shall improve their trademark ownership system, collect evidence of trademark popularity, apply for key trademark protection lists and cultivate well-known trademarks to consolidate legal rights. Establish pre-registration retrieval mechanisms to avoid registering or using similar marks intended to ride other brands’ popularity.
E-commerce operations must comply with IP rules throughout all links; standardize trademark use in store names, product titles and promotional copy to prevent traffic acquisition by relying on third-party famous brands. When infringement disputes arise, enterprises shall take timely measures to stop losses and preserve evidence. Concealing revenues or changing business entities to evade liability will turn mitigating factors into aggravating circumstances. Conduct regular online monitoring of infringement clues, resolutely pursue legal action against repeated and large-scale infringement, and leverage punitive damages under IP laws to safeguard brand assets.
This Honor trademark infringement final judgment serves as a model of strengthened intellectual property protection in consumer electronics. It has drastically narrowed the grey area for malicious brand free-riding. Brand competition today centers on intellectual property barriers. Compliance, respect for original creations and abidance by judicial rules are the cornerstones of sustainable business operation. Only by building a complete trademark protection system, tightening infringement risk control and proactively protecting rights can enterprises preserve the value of intangible brand assets and avoid sky-high infringement compensation.
