{"id":1453,"date":"2019-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-09-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oln-law.zegal.xyz\/?p=1453"},"modified":"2021-09-10T05:30:35","modified_gmt":"2021-09-10T05:30:35","slug":"effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/","title":{"rendered":"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With the rapid opening policy development of China, which has attracted more and more international brand owners to manufacture their products in China, called Original Equipment Manufacturer (\u201cOEM<\/strong>\u201d), the opinions on whether use of a trademark as OEM constitutes trademark infringement or whether it is sufficient to defend a non-use cancellation have been gradually developed, i.e. from infringing to not infringing in infringement proceedings, and from being valid to being invalid in non-use cancellation proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Use of a Trademark as OEM in Infringement Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been arguable that whether using a trademark as OEM and the OEM manufactured goods bearing the trademark without selling\/circulation in the marketplace in China would constitute trademark infringement in China. Further, there is no specific law and rules regarding to this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, we can find some practical guidance by taking reference to some precedents, in particular the landmark PRETUL case (the Supreme People\u2019s Court – No. 2014 \u2013 38). The Supreme People\u2019s Court (\u201cSPC<\/strong>\u201d) re-tried the case, and ruled that use of the PRETUL trademark as OEM does not constitute trademark infringement, on the grounds that the act of physically affixing the trademark to the manufactured goods is not deemed as the valid use of a trademark because such act does not function as an identifier distinguishing the source of goods in accordance with the PRC Trademark Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cArticle 48<\/strong><\/em> For the purpose of this Law, the use of trademarks shall refer to the use of trademarks on goods, the packaging or containers of goods and the transaction documents of goods, as well as the use of trademarks for advertising, exhibition and other commercial activities for the purpose of identifying the sources of goods.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, in the PRIME GUARD case (Ningbo Intermediate People\u2019s Court – No. 2017- 02 \u2013 4182), Ningbo Intermediate People\u2019s Court also ruled that use of the trademark as OEM does not constitute trademark infringement, in which the main reasoning follows the landmark PRETUL case as above-mentioned.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, in one of our client\u2019s cases, our client\u2019s OEM manufacturer was sued for trademark infringement by a local company who registered a trademark similar to our client\u2019s trademark in respect of same\/similar goods in China, we have submitted the following evidence including but not limited to Ningbo Beilun District Court in the first instance in support of our case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Registration Certificate of the trademark (\u201cLocal Reg.\u201d) on the detained goods in the country where the Exported Goods were shipped to;<\/li>
  2. OEM\/Commissioned Manufacturing Contract entered between the manufacturer and the trademark owner of the Local Reg.; and<\/li>
  3. Other evidence shows the Local Reg. has the legitimated trademark rights of the client\u2019s trademark on the Manufactured\/Exported Goods, and the Exported Goods are solely sold directly to the owner of Local Reg, but not in China etc.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    We received a Judgment that is in favor of our client\u2019s OEM from Ningbo Beilun District Court, ruling that their manufacturer use of the client\u2019s trademark is an OEM act, and such act does not constitute infringement to the Plaintiff\u2019s trademark rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The plaintiff further appealed before Ningbo Intermediate People\u2019s Court. In the second instance, apart from the evidence 1-3 above, we supplemented evidence to enhance that the manufacturer use of the client\u2019s mark is an OEM act and the client, who registered the Local Reg., has the trademark rights on the Exported Goods. Besides, we cited the two precedents i.e. the PRETUL case and the PRIME GUARD case in support our client\u2019s OEM\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We have just received the Appeal Decision that is in favor of our client\u2019s OEM, in which Ningbo Intermediate People\u2019s Court ruled that the plaintiff\u2019s appeal is without merits and the facts affirmed in the first instance are certain and the laws applied are correct. Hence, Ninbo Intermediate People\u2019s Court ruled that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    • the Plaintiff\u2019s Appeal be dismissed;<\/li>
    • the Decision made in the first instance be maintained.          <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Comment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In brief, to assess the infringement, the Courts primarily take into consideration the following facts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      • Whether the manufacturer has ever been legally authorized to manufacture the products;<\/li>
      • Whether the manufacturer has fulfilled duty of reasonable care;<\/li>
      • Whether the use of the mark by the manufacturer confuses the customers as to the trade origin of the products;<\/li>
      • Whether the manufacturer has intention of infringing the Plaintiff\u2019s trademark rights.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Based on the current practice and the precedents, including but not limited the aforesaid cased, it is very likely that the Chinese court will rule that use of trademarks as OEM does not constitute trademark infringement if the manufactured goods are solely exported to the country of origin of the Local Reg. and the goods are not sold\/circulated in China market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        OEM Use to defend Non-use Cancellation Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The issue that whether the use of a registered trademark as OEM is adequate to defend a non-use cancellation is disputed in China. Further, there is no relevant law set down to solve this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In practice, some earlier precedents show that a registered trademark used on manufactured goods could be considered as valid use, so that it could defend a non-use cancellation. Whereas, some recent precedents shows such use was deemed as invalid, resulting from which the registration of the trademark will be canceled and removed from the register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Use of a registered trademark as OEM is valid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In the SCALEXTRIC appeal case (Beijing High People\u2019s Court – No. 2010 \u2013 265), Beijing First Intermediate People\u2019s Court ruled that the TRAB\u2019s decision (No. 4077) be maintained and the registration of SCALEXTRIC be removed from the register on the grounds that the manufacturer use of the trademark as OEM does not comply with the use requirement of trademarks under the PRC Trademark Law. However, in the second instance, Beijing High People\u2019s Court overturned the Decision made in the first instance by taking into full consideration of the user evidence of the OEM submitted and ruled that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        • Beijing First Intermediate Court\u2019s Decision (No. 2009 – 01840) be withdrawn;<\/li>
        • The TRAB\u2019s decision (No. 4077) be withdrawn;<\/li>
        • The Trademark Office re-visit the non-use cancellation on registration of SCALEXTRIC (Reg. No.731233); and<\/li>
        • The TRAB bears the entire official fees charged for both the first instance and the second instance.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          In this case, Beijing High People\u2019s Court ruled that the manufacturer use of the trademark as OEM is valid, and thus maintained the registration on the register<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          One interesting point to note is that the Beijing High People\u2019s Court also ruled that: if use of a trademark as OEM is regarded invalid, this will be as the grounds for third parties to challenge the trademark via non-use cancellation. If so, this may result in the legitimate trademark being cancelled and removed from the register, which may prejudice to the registrant\/right brand holder\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Use of a registered trademark as OEM is invalid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Nevertheless, on the contrary, in a latest case, i.e. the MANGO case (Beijing High People\u2019s Court – No. 2016 \u2013 5003), Beijing High People\u2019s Court re-affirmed that use of the trademark \u201cMANGO\u201d as OEM is invalid under the PRC Trademarks on the grounds as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          • Use of the trademark \u201cMANGO\u201d as OEM does not function as an identifier distinguishing the source of goods in the marketplace;<\/li>
          • All the evidence submitted in both first instance and second instance is not adequate to prove the manufacturer use of the trademark, which complies with the requirement of the actual commercial use of a trademark in market circulation; and<\/li>
          • Beijing First Middle Court\u2019s Decision (No. 2015 -1249) cancelling\/removing registration of the trademark \u201cMANGO\u201d from the register is not without merits.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            Hence, Beijing High Court ruled to maintain the Decision (No. 2015 -1249) cancelling\/removing registration of the trademark \u201cMANGO\u201d from the register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Comment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            It has been arguable that only manufacturing is sufficient to defend a non-use cancellation. However, according the MANGO case as above-mentioned, to effectively defend a non-use cancellation, we opine sales of the goods bearing the registered trademark in China market is advisable. Otherwise, only use of a trademark as OEM is unlikely to be prevailed in non-use cancellation proceedings, if the registration is challenged by a third party. Therefore, if there is no sales evidence in China, the registrant may consider re-registering the mark in every 3-year interval. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            One meaningful and key point to note is that Beijing High Court cited the landmark PRETUL case in support of the reasoning of the MANGO case, addressing that though the applicable articles of the PRC Trademark Law for these two cases are different, the nature of the legal concepts stipulated under the same law shall be treated and applied in the same way; otherwise contradictions\/conflicts will be inevitably caused. This is because in the same way, use of a trademark is deemed as invalid in trademark infringement proceedings as ruled by the SPC in the PRETUL case. Thus, under the same concept of use of trademark and use of a trademark as OEM, the use of the trademark as OEM in the PRETUL case is invalid so does it in the MANGO non-use cancellation proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Although China adopts case-by-case principle and the Courts change practice time to time, we believe that the trend of citing precedents in support of similar cases is gradually increased, which is playing a significant role, in particulars, those ruled by the SPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            We will continue observing the development of the impacts on the use of a trademark as OEM in China. Lastly, to obviate the risk of trademark infringement and protect your trademark rights in China, it is always advisable to seek professional advice\/assistance before starting OEM.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            With the rapid opening policy development of China, which has attracted more and more international brand owners to manufacture their products in China, called Original Equipment Manufacturer (\u201cOEM\u201d), the opinions on whether use of a trademark as OEM constitutes trademark infringement or whether it is sufficient to defend a non-use cancellation have been gradually developed, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":2595,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"featured_post":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1453","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"entry"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEffects on use of a trademark as OEM in China | OLN<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China | OLN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"With the rapid opening policy development of China, which has attracted more and more international brand owners to manufacture their products in China, called Original Equipment Manufacturer (\u201cOEM\u201d), the opinions on whether use of a trademark as OEM constitutes trademark infringement or whether it is sufficient to defend a non-use cancellation have been gradually developed, ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"OLN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-09-20T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-09-10T05:30:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1045\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"OLN Marketing\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"OLN Marketing\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"OLN Marketing\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/40feb57ef264bf780becaba28e43367f\"},\"headline\":\"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-20T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-09-10T05:30:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\"},\"wordCount\":1639,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\",\"name\":\"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China | OLN\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-20T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-09-10T05:30:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg\",\"width\":1600,\"height\":1045},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Domaines de pratique\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/insights\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Droit de la Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 Intellectuelle\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/insights\/droit-de-la-propriete-intellectuelle\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"OLN\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#organization\",\"name\":\"OLN\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2023\/12\/OLN-Blue.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2023\/12\/OLN-Blue.svg\",\"width\":2562,\"height\":925,\"caption\":\"OLN\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/40feb57ef264bf780becaba28e43367f\",\"name\":\"OLN Marketing\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b57e75a0d6810e47f6dbcc92f236ad9419dedb1074e2a5c1ce0654cf4038d06?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b57e75a0d6810e47f6dbcc92f236ad9419dedb1074e2a5c1ce0654cf4038d06?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"OLN Marketing\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/author\/olnmarketing\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China | OLN","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China | OLN","og_description":"With the rapid opening policy development of China, which has attracted more and more international brand owners to manufacture their products in China, called Original Equipment Manufacturer (\u201cOEM\u201d), the opinions on whether use of a trademark as OEM constitutes trademark infringement or whether it is sufficient to defend a non-use cancellation have been gradually developed, ...","og_url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/","og_site_name":"OLN","article_published_time":"2019-09-20T00:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-09-10T05:30:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1600,"height":1045,"url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"OLN Marketing","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"OLN Marketing","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/"},"author":{"name":"OLN Marketing","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/40feb57ef264bf780becaba28e43367f"},"headline":"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China","datePublished":"2019-09-20T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-10T05:30:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/"},"wordCount":1639,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg","articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/","url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/","name":"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China | OLN","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg","datePublished":"2019-09-20T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-10T05:30:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM.jpg","width":1600,"height":1045},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/effects-on-use-of-a-trademark-as-oem-in-china\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"","item":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Domaines de pratique","item":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/insights\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Droit de la Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 Intellectuelle","item":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/insights\/droit-de-la-propriete-intellectuelle\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Effects on use of a trademark as OEM in China"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/","name":"OLN","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#organization","name":"OLN","url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2023\/12\/OLN-Blue.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2023\/12\/OLN-Blue.svg","width":2562,"height":925,"caption":"OLN"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/40feb57ef264bf780becaba28e43367f","name":"OLN Marketing","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b57e75a0d6810e47f6dbcc92f236ad9419dedb1074e2a5c1ce0654cf4038d06?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b57e75a0d6810e47f6dbcc92f236ad9419dedb1074e2a5c1ce0654cf4038d06?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"OLN Marketing"},"url":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/author\/olnmarketing\/"}]}},"featured_image_src":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM-600x400.jpg","featured_image_src_square":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/25\/2021\/09\/OEM-600x600.jpg","author_info":{"display_name":"OLN Marketing","author_link":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/author\/olnmarketing\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1453"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1453\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1453"},{"taxonomy":"featured_post","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oln-law.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/featured_post?post=1453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}