Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 18, 2025

1. Defendant’s use of “HUAV” infringes Huawei’s registered trademark rights, Huawei awarded CNY 9.8 million in damages

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) filed a lawsuit in court against Shenzhen Tengyu Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (“Tengyu”), Shenzhen Jintaiyi Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Jintaiyi”), and an individual Chen for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Huawei holds registered trademarks “HUAWEI” with reg. nos. 14203958, 7518113, 10322510, “HUAWEI MatePad” with reg. nos. 33319150, 36353801, “Matepad Air” with reg. no. 68997645, “HUAWEI MATE AIR” with reg. no. 17526330, “Mate Pro” with reg. no. 33016372, “MateBook” with reg. no. 20095505, “HUAWEI MateBook” with reg. no. 18545354, and “HUAWEI MateBook X” with reg. no. 23234865 and others. Tengyu operates stores on the JD platform including “HUAV Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Flagship Store,” “HUAV Tablet Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Tablet Computer Flagship Store,” “HUAV Tablet Computer Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Computer Machine Official Flagship Store,” “HUAV Computer Office Flagship Store” and others, and operates “HUAV Flagship Store” on the Tmall platform, selling products including “HUAV,” “HUAV MotePad Air,” “HUAV Mote Pad Pro,” “HUAV Pad Pro,” “HUAV Pad 6 Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook X Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook 15,” “HUAV Pro book,” and “HUAV ProBook D14.”

After trial, the court held:

Regarding whether Tengyu’s actions constitute trademark infringement, Huawei’s said trademarks are still valid. Tengyu opened stores on multiple e-commerce platforms selling tablet computers and laptop computers, using identifiers such as “HUAV,” “HUAV MotePad Pro,” “HUAV MotePad Air,” “HUAV Pad Pro,” “HUAV Pad 6 Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook X Pro,” “HUAV MaceBook 15,” “HUAV Pro book,” “HUAV ProBook D14” in store names, product link names, product details and other pages. These identifiers are highly similar to Huawei’s registered trademarks in question, easily causing consumer confusion, and from the user reviews of these products, Tengyu’s use of these identifiers has actually caused consumer confusion. Tengyu’s use of the above identifiers infringes upon Huawei’s exclusive trademark rights.

Regarding whether Tengyu’s actions constitute unfair competition, Tengyu’s product pages in its various e-commerce platform stores selling tablet computers and laptop computers imitate Huawei’s advertising slogans, graphics, design layout, and overall page layout. This behavior would further cause consumers to mistakenly believe that Tengyu’s sold products originate from Huawei or that there is a specific connection between Tengyu and Huawei, constituting unfair competition.

Regarding economic damage compensation, Huawei did not submit evidence to prove its losses, and the court determined that Tengyu’s profits from the infringement were CNY 6 million (approx. USD 820,000). At the same time, considering that Tengyu intentionally infringed upon Huawei’s trademark rights, and its infringement was large in scale, serious in consequences, and generated huge profits, which constitutes serious intellectual property rights infringement, the court supported Huawei’s claim for punitive damages. Comprehensively considering factors such as Tengyu’s degree of subjective fault and the severity of the infringement, the court determined the punitive damages multiplier to be one time. Based on the court’s determination of Tengyu’s profits and the determined punitive damages multiplier, Tengyu should compensate Huawei for economic losses of CNY 12 million (approx. USD 1,643,000), which exceeds the CNY 9.8 million requested by Huawei in this case, so the court fully supports Huawei’s claim for CNY 9.8 million in economic losses.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China