证券研究报告 公司研究 [Table_ReportType] 公司点评报告 [Table_StockAndRank] 公牛集团(603195) 投资评级 上次评级 [Table_Author] 姜文镪 新消费行业首席分析师 执业编号：S1500524120004 邮 箱：jiangwenqiang@cindasc.com [Table_Title] 公牛集团：短期业绩略有承压，积极探索增量 请阅读最后一页免责声明及信息披露 http://www.cindasc.com 1 [Table_ReportDate] 2025 年 08 月 29 日 [Table_S 事件：公司ummar发布y] 2025 半年报。2025H1 公司实现收入 81.68 亿元（同比 -2.6%），归母净利润 20.60 亿元（同比-8.0%），扣非归母净利润 18.42 亿 元（同比-3.2%）；2025Q2 实现收入 42.46 亿元（同比-7.4%），归母净利润 10.85 亿元（同比-17.2%），扣非归母净利润 9.87 亿元（同比-9.1%）。 点评： 电连接：坚持产品创新夯实市场地位，电动工具贡献增量。2025H1 电连 ...

深圳市名家汇科技股份有限公司 2025 年半年度报告全文 深圳市名家汇科技股份有限公司 【2025 年 8 月 26 日】 深圳市名家汇科技股份有限公司 2025 年半年度报告全文 公司董事会、监事会及董事、监事、高级管理人员保证半年度报告内容 的真实、准确、完整，不存在虚假记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏，并承担 个别和连带的法律责任。 公司负责人程宗玉、主管会计工作负责人李海荣及会计机构负责人(会计 主管人员)韦晓声明：保证本半年度报告中财务报告的真实、准确、完整。 所有董事均已出席了审议本次半年报的董事会会议。 如本报告涉及未来计划等前瞻性陈述，则该计划不构成公司对投资者的实 质承诺，投资者及相关人士均应对此保持足够的风险认识，并且应当理解计 划、预测与承诺之间的差异。 公司存在的风险因素详见本报告"第三节管理层讨论与分析"中"十、公 司面临的风险和应对措施"，提请广大投资者注意阅读。 公司计划不派发现金红利，不送红股，不以公积金转增股本。 深圳市名家汇科技股份有限公司 2025 年半年度报告全文 深圳市名家汇科技股份有限公司 2025 年半年度报告全文 一、载有公司负责人、主管会计工作负责人、会计机构负责 ...

Core Viewpoint - Guangdong Province's High People's Court has released a series of typical cases regarding punitive damages for intellectual property infringement, emphasizing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining fair market competition [1] Group 1: Punitive Damages Cases - The court applied the maximum punitive damages of 5 times in the "Maple Leaf" trademark case, highlighting the severe nature of the infringement [1][4] - In the case of Rong Company vs. Di Company regarding patent infringement, the court considered sales revenue, profit margins, and patent contribution to determine the basis for punitive damages, ensuring equal protection for both domestic and foreign entities [1][11] - The court's support rate for punitive damages in 32 intellectual property civil infringement cases reached nearly 60%, with total compensation amounting to nearly 200 million yuan in 2024 [1] Group 2: Specific Case Summaries - In the case of Tai Company vs. Zhen Company, the court found that Zhen Company knowingly used a similar trademark on the same products, constituting malicious infringement, and awarded punitive damages based on significant profits from the infringement [2][3][4] - In the case of Jin Company vs. He Company, despite the defendants having paid compensation in a criminal case, they were still liable for punitive damages in the civil case, demonstrating the separation of criminal and civil liabilities [7][9][10] - The court ruled in favor of Rong Company against Di Company, determining that the infringement was severe and warranted punitive damages based on the profits from the infringing products [11][14][15] Group 3: Legal Principles and Implications - The cases illustrate the court's commitment to strictly enforcing intellectual property rights and applying punitive damages to deter malicious infringement [5][10][29] - The rulings provide a framework for determining the basis for punitive damages, including considerations of sales revenue, profit margins, and the nature of the infringement [11][25] - The decisions reinforce the message that even after criminal penalties, civil liabilities for intellectual property infringement remain intact, ensuring comprehensive protection for rights holders [10][29]