On June 22, 2026, A.O. Smith (China) Water Heater Co., Ltd. (艾欧史密斯（中国）热水器有限公司) received a final judgment from the Guangdong High People’s Court (广东省高级人民法院) in a trademark infringement appeal case (Case No.: (2025) Yue Min Zhong No. 1447).

The Court dismissed all appeals filed by the defendants and upheld the first-instance judgment in full, ordering multiple affiliated companies and their actual controllers to jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable enforcement expenses totaling RMB 5 million.

In this case, multiple individuals cross-held shares in and controlled several affiliated companies. The defendants intentionally imitated A.O. Smith’s well-known Class 11 water heater trademark, registered a similar trademark “凹史蜜斯,” and established a complete infringement chain involving trademark registration, product manufacturing, and multi-platform online sales.

The infringing water heaters and kitchen water heaters were sold on major e-commerce platforms, including JD.com and Taobao, with total online sales exceeding RMB 50 million.

The Court found that the defendants’ companies had substantial overlap in personnel, ownership structure, and business operations, and that the individuals involved directly participated in trademark registration, manufacturing, and online sales activities. Accordingly, the Court held that the defendants had a common intent to infringe and constituted joint infringement.

The Court further confirmed that A.O. Smith’s trademark had achieved well-known status before the filing date of the infringing trademark. Considering the defendants’ bad faith and the extensive scale of infringement, the Court held that the first-instance award of RMB 5 million was justified and upheld the judgment in full.

This case further strengthened protection of A.O. Smith’s well-known trademark rights and provided judicial guidance for addressing large-scale online infringement involving the unauthorized registration of similar trademarks and coordinated infringement activities in the home appliance industry.

Funto Law Firm acted as legal counsel for the plaintiff in this m