Refurbished Huawei Switches Sold as New Resulted in RMB 20 Million Compensation

In April 2026, the Beijing High People’s Court released the 2025 Beijing Court Typical Intellectual Property Protection Cases, which included the “Refurbished Switches Resale Trademark Infringement Case”. In this case, six defendants were found by the Haidian District People’s Court to have engaged in large-scale refurbishment and sale of counterfeit “HUAWEI” switches, constituting trademark infringement. The court applied treble punitive damages and ordered the defendants to jointly pay RMB 20 million in economic compensation and RMB 100,000 in reasonable expenses to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., fully supporting the right holder’s claim. Some defendants withdrew their appeals, and the first-instance judgment has become effective.

The infringing conduct in this case began in March 2016. According to criminal judgments, four defendants, including a Beijing integration company, extensively refurbished and sold counterfeit “HUAWEI” switches without Huawei’s permission. The other two defendants were responsible for product sales, channel operations, and providing accounts for fund transfers.

The infringement chain covered the entire process of “acquisition – refurbishment – resale”. The defendant Zhou and others purchased used Huawei switches and components at low prices, organized multiple individuals to carry out disassembly, cleaning, component replacement, serial number alteration, painting, and packaging, then affixed Huawei brand labels and sold the products as new equipment. Through a division of labor, the defendants obtained used switches and components from online and other channels, carried out or arranged for others to conduct processing and refurbishment, altered serial numbers, painted and packaged the products, affixed labels that were identical or similar to Huawei’s registered trademarks, and sold them as new devices.

By the time the case was uncovered, the defendants had sold several thousand infringing products. The value of seized unsold infringing products alone exceeded RMB 5.4 million, and the illegal business volume exceeded RMB 5.6 million. Huawei alleged that the total sales amount by the six defendants exceeded RMB 200 million, with profits exceeding RMB 15 million, and accordingly requested the application of punitive damages, seeking RMB 20 million in compensation and RMB 350,000 in reasonable expenses.

After trial, the Haidian District People’s Court held that Huawei’s trademarks “华为”, “HUAWEI” and the graphic mark, registered in Class 9 for goods such as program-controlled telephone exchange equipment, are well-known trademarks and enjoy legally protected exclusive trademark rights. Without permission and for the purpose of making profits through sales, the six defendants carried out refurbishment and resale through a division of labor, constituting joint infringement, and infringed Huawei’s trademark rights.

Regarding the defendants’ argument that “criminal penalties have already been imposed, so punitive damages should not apply in this civil case,” the court did not sustain it. The Deputy Head of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Haidian District People’s Court stated that the defendants engaged in planned and organized division of labor, forming a complete infringement chain with covert and egregious means; the scale of infringement was large and the profits high. Such conduct constituted willful infringement with serious circumstances, warranting the application of punitive damages.

In determining the amount of compensation, when establishing the profit base for the infringement, the court, based on the evidence and causal relationship, determined that the infringement profit was no less than RMB 7.15 million. Taking into account factors such as the defendants’ obvious subjective willfulness, covert refurbishment methods, long duration spanning several years, and large scale of infringement, the court adopted the treble punitive damages multiplier requested by Huawei, fully supported the RMB 20 million claim, and ordered the six defendants to jointly pay RMB 100,000 in reasonable expenses.

In this case, even though the same infringing conduct had already resulted in criminal liability, the court still granted punitive damages in the civil action. This provides strong protection for the core competitive products of high-tech enterprises and serves as a deterrent and warning to potential counterfeiters and sellers.