Case Background

DBN (“大北农”) is a well‑known brand in China’s agriculture‑animal‑husbandry sector. Founded in 1994, Beijing DBN Technology Group Co., Ltd. has deep roots in the animal‑feed industry for more than two decades and was listed on stock exchange in 2010. It has grown into a large‑scale agri‑tech group with over 13 000 employees, more than 60 production bases, over 80 subsidiaries and more than 2 000 pig‑raising service centers. It has won many honors including China Top‑50 Feed Enterprise, China Famous‑brand Product and China Renowned Brand.

The Chinese‑character trademark “大北农” was registered in September 2001 under Class 31 for animal fattening agents and animal feed. Its original registration expired on September 20, 2021 and has been continuously renewed. The mark enjoys high market reputation and brand influence within the farming‑animal‑husbandry industry.

The plaintiff Beijing Kedbn Biotechnology Co., Ltd. is a non‑exclusive licensee of the “大北农” trademark and is entitled to file lawsuits in its own name. The defendant Xu Mousheng used to be a regional manager of a DBN‑group subsidiary — an insider who was supposed to safeguard the brand.

Infringement Process: Former Employee Turned Counterfeit Operator

Having worked within the DBN system for years, Xu Mousheng possessed thorough knowledge of brand operation and market layout. After resignation, instead of building an independent business, he leveraged his old employer’s brand resources as his “start‑up capital”. He successively invested in more than ten enterprises incorporating “大北农” in their trade names, such as Qingdao Dadanong Beverage Company, Qingdao Dadanong Health‑care Company and Dezhou Dadanong Company. These companies directly competed in the animal‑feed market against his former employer.

These enterprises prominently displayed the mark “Qingdao Dabeinong” on their products. They commissioned Shandong Dadanong Company, Dezhou Liumou Company, Dezhou Youmou Company and others to manufacture large quantities of infringing goods, forming a complete production‑supply‑sales chain. To evade supervision, Xu issued production instructions via personal WeChat accounts and settled payments through private bank accounts. He also promoted shipping information widely via short‑video clips on Douyin, moving infringing activities onto streaming platforms.

Even after receiving multiple cease‑and‑desist lawyer’s letters and court litigation documents, Xu Mousheng continued the infringing sales. The defendant companies’ core business consisted substantially of manufacturing infringing goods. During litigation, they deliberately withheld financial books to conceal illegal gains. Subjective malice and serious circumstances are rarely seen among similar trademark disputes.

First‑instance Judgment: Full RMB 20 Million Award

The Qingdao Intellectual Property Tribunal held that the prominently used mark “Qingdao Dabeinong” on accused goods was similar to the registered “大北农” trademark. The goods fell within the same animal‑feed category with largely overlapping sales channels and consumer groups, likely to cause confusion among relevant public, thus infringing the plaintiff’s exclusive trademark rights.

On damages, the court strictly examined the two statutory prerequisites for punitive‑damage application:

1. Subjective intent: As a former regional manager, Xu Mousheng clearly knew the reputation of the DBN trademark. After resignation he set up multiple enterprises with “大北农” in trade‑names to manufacture competing goods. His free‑riding intent was obvious and far from mere negligence.
2. Serious circumstances: The defendants made infringement their main business, refused to stop after repeated warnings, operated on a massive scale, and concealed illegal gains by withholding financial books.

Since defendants refused to submit financial records, the court could not directly ascertain illegal profits. Alternatively, it analyzed shipping footage published on the defendant’s Douyin account. Combining monthly shipment volume (412 tons), infringement duration (36 months), unit price (RMB 6 342 / ton) and average profit margin of comparable listed agricultural companies, the court calculated the defendants’ illegal profits exceeded RMB 11 005 551.65.

This calculation approach follows evidentiary rules and prevents infringers from profiting by non‑cooperation.

Considering the defendants’ subjective fault and serious circumstances, the court applied punitive damages at a multiplier of one‑fold and awarded RMB 20 million, fully supporting the plaintiff’s claim.

Second‑instance Proceeding: Landmark Precedent Established

Dissatisfied with the first‑instance judgment, the defendants appealed to the Shandong Higher People’s Court.

After comprehensive review of facts and law application, the higher court affirmed the original judgment for clear factual findings and correct legal reasoning.

This case was later selected among Shandong Higher People’s Court’s 2025 typical cases on intellectual‑property punitive damages and became an important demonstrative precedent in Shandong judicial system. A deputy presiding judge of the IP division of Shandong Higher People’s Court noted that with platform‑economy growth, short‑video platforms have become important channels for infringer promotion. This ruling confirms that short‑video‑platform public materials concerning shipment may serve as valid evidence for calculating sales volume, offering valuable reference for similar cases.

Case Takeaways

First, short‑video platforms are not law‑free zones. In this case, Douyin shipping‑video footage was creatively admitted as evidence for calculating illegal gains, defeating infringers’ strategy of “online promotion while keeping offline operations concealed”. In the livestream era, every public post may become court‑admissible evidence.

Second, former‑employee entrepreneurship must observe legal boundaries. As ex‑regional manager, the defendant founded more than ten enterprises incorporating DBN‑related trade‑names and was finally ordered to pay RMB 20 million damages. This ruling sends a strong warning to departing employees holding former‑employer business information and brand resources: familiarity with a brand is not capital, and past trust does not equal authorization. Free‑riding comes with far‑heavier costs than many expect.

Third, evidence obstruction cannot relieve liability. Where defendants withhold financial books, courts may calculate infringer profits based on industry average profit margins plus public platform data, so those concealing evidence must bear adverse consequences.

Fourth, agricultural brands also deserve stringent IP protection. Listed by Shandong Higher People’s Court as a typical case for IP protection in agriculture‑related sectors, this judgment illustrates equal rigorous judicial protection for well‑known brands across all industries, whether tech giants or agricultural enterprises.