Bull vs. Gongniu: 20M Yuan Compensation in 4-Year IP Battle
On January 19, 2026, a judgment issued by the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province put an end to a four-year trademark tug-of-war.
The final verdict was delivered in the trademark infringement and unfair competition case filed by Bull Group Co., Ltd. against Gongniu Cable Hebei Co., Ltd. (formerly Daming County Gongniu Cable Co., Ltd.). The court applied triple punitive damages and fully granted Bull Group's claim of 20 million yuan in compensation. This is the largest IP rights protection victory won by Bull Group since its establishment.
From "Bull" to "Gongniu": A Sham Infringement
The story dates back to 2021.
Back then, an enterprise named Daming County Gongniu Cable Co., Ltd. unauthorizedly used the "Bull" logo on its products, packaging, official website and Douyin platform. For Bull Group, which has been deeply engaged in the electrical industry for decades, this scene was not unfamiliar. Since its founding in 1995, the "Bull" trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark in 2006 and 2011, enjoying high market recognition on goods such as wires and cables.
The products approved for use by "Gongniu" Cable are exactly cables and wires, which belong to the same category as Bull Group's core products. "Gongniu" and "Bull" differ by only one character, with highly similar text composition and identical pronunciation, which is very likely to cause consumer confusion.
In 2021, the People's Court of Binjiang District, Hangzhou ruled that the original Daming County Gongniu Cable Co., Ltd. constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition.
This should have been the end of the story, but it unexpectedly became the beginning of another.
Repeated Violations: Name Change Without Ending Free-Riding
After losing the lawsuit, the infringer did not stop its acts.
Daming County Gongniu Cable Co., Ltd. changed its name to Gongniu Cable Hebei Co., Ltd. and continued to extensively use the "Gongniu" logo, which is highly similar to "Bull", on similar products.
According to Bull Group's disclosure, Gongniu Cable claimed an operating income of 1.881 billion yuan and a profit of 12.79 million yuan in 2024 alone.
Faced with the "repeated infringement" despite judgments, Bull Group filed a lawsuit again and claimed 20 million yuan in compensation. Gongniu Cable argued that there were differences between "Gongniu" and "Bull", the two parties belonged to different industry categories, and the first-instance award of 5.8 million yuan had exceeded the scope of actual impact.
Second-Instance Revision: 20M Yuan and Triple Punitive Damages
On January 19, 2026, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court issued a second-instance judgment, bringing a dramatic turn to the case.
The court held that Gongniu Cable's acts fully met the statutory requirements for the application of punitive damages, noting that "the infringement is of a malicious nature, constitutes repeated infringement, with obvious subjective malice, wide infringement scope and high illegal profits".
The calculation of the compensation amount fully reflects the refinement of judicial adjudication:
-
Determine the calculation base
Based on the 147 million yuan winning bid amount of Gongniu Cable in public bidding from February 2022 to December 2025, combined with the minimum average operating profit margin of 6.35% of listed companies in the same industry during the same period, the illegal profit was estimated to be about 9.3 million yuan.
-
Determine the punitive multiple
In view of the defendant's repeated infringement and obvious subjective malice, the court decided to apply triple punitive damages.
-
Calculate the total compensation
The product of the base and the multiple would be approximately 37.2 million yuan, far exceeding the 20 million yuan claimed by Bull Group. After comprehensive consideration, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court fully upheld the 20 million yuan compensation claim.
The gap of 14.2 million yuan, from 5.8 million yuan in the first instance to 20 million yuan in the second instance, reflects the judicial authority's zero tolerance for malicious infringement.
From "Making Up for Losses" to "Punishing Malice"
The breakthrough significance of this case lies in that the judicial authorities no longer limit themselves to compensating the direct losses of the brand owner, but form a strong deterrent to acts with deep subjective malice and large-scale infringement through punitive damages.
The conclusion of this case sends a clear signal: in China's judicial practice, punitive damages are becoming a normalized "sharp sword" against malicious infringement that "repeats violations despite judgments".
