{"id":2231,"date":"2022-08-30T18:48:00","date_gmt":"2022-08-30T18:48:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?p=2231"},"modified":"2022-09-02T19:26:05","modified_gmt":"2022-09-02T19:26:05","slug":"uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/","title":{"rendered":"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/TM-show-cause-order-Shenzhen-Haiyi.pdf\">Show Cause Order<\/a> dated August 25, 2022, the USPTO stated it has reason to believe that Shenzhen Haiyi Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. et al. &#8220;have provided false, fictitious or fraudulent information in thousands of trademark application and registration records.&#8221; Specifically, &#8220;Respondents have registered for, control, and\/or operate one or more USPTO.gov accounts responsible for submitting documents that included (1) the electronic signature of attorney Jeffrey Firestone, including filings signed and submitted after his death, and\/or (2) the signature of \u201cJackson George,\u201d a presumed fictitious attorney. &#8220;<!--more--><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-2232\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"627\" height=\"953\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg 627w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary-197x300.jpg 197w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 984px) 61vw, (max-width: 1362px) 45vw, 600px\" \/>Per the USPTO,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Jeffrey Stewart Firestone is or was identified as an attorney of record in over 8,000 trademark applications and\/or registrations. Despite news articles reporting Mr. Firestone\u2019s death on July 30 or 31, 2021, more than 300 submissions, allegedly signed by Mr. Firestone, have been filed with the USPTO since August 2, 2021. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Respondents\u2019 email addresses appear in at least 500 trademark application and registration records where Jeffrey Firestone is (or was) identified as the attorney of record. Moreover, one of the USPTO.gov accounts registered to Respondents submitted four Responses to Office Actions allegedly signed directly within the individual electronic TEAS form by Mr. Firestone after his death.\u00a0 Each of these submissions contains false, fictitious, and\/or fraudulent information. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Of particular note, Application Serial No. 90209151 contains alleged \u201cproof\u201d of Mr. Firestone\u2019s standing with the Illinois Attorney Registration &amp; Disciplinary Commission (\u201cARDC\u201d), submitted by Respondents in the Aug. 17, 2021, Response to Office Action, also allegedly signed by Mr. Firestone directly within the TEAS form, notwithstanding the fact that he was deceased at the time.\u00a0 The provision of this type of evidence further demonstrates that Respondents were involved in a scheme to attempt to fool the USPTO into believing that Respondents\u2019 submissions originated from the real Jeffrey Firestone.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">In addition to improper use of Mr. Firestone\u2019s identity, Respondents were compelled to identify a fictitious attorney in an apparent attempt to obfuscate their involvement. \u201cJackson George\u201d is or was identified as an attorney of record in over 2,500 trademark applications and registrations. The majority of these applications and registrations indicate that \u201cJackson George\u201d is licensed to practice law in Illinois, though some also indicate he is admitted to practice law in New York. The ARDC identifies only a single living attorney who is authorized to practice law with a name similar to \u201cJackson George,\u201d namely, George Jackson III.\u00a0 Other than George Jackson III, no attorney named either \u201cJackson George\u201d or \u201cGeorge Jackson\u201d is registered as a licensed attorney in Illinois or New York.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"> On January 12, 2021, Mr. Jackson confirmed in an email to the USPTO that he \u201cnever practiced in the [trademark] arena\u201d and informed the Office that these \u201cJackson George\u201d applications and registrations do not \u201cstem from [his] practice or [him] in any fashion whatsoever.\u201d\u00a0 Notwithstanding the fact that \u201cJackson George\u201d does not seem to be a licensed attorney in Illinois or New York, multiple USPTO.gov accounts have been registered in the name of \u201cJackson George\u201d and thousands of submissions have been made through TEAS naming \u201cJackson George\u201d as the attorney of record, including submissions allegedly signed by this apparently nonexistent person. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Respondents\u2019 email addresses appear in thousands of trademark application and registration records where \u201cJackson George\u201d is identified as the attorney of record. Further, at least one USPTO.gov account associated with Respondents is responsible for submitting over 1,000 TEAS forms with \u201cJackson George\u201d as the attorney of record, with many of these allegedly being directly signed by \u201cJackson George\u201d as well. Each of these submissions contains false, fictitious, and\/or fraudulent information.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In addition, the USPTO states that the Respondents submitted false specimens of use in trademark records.\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">Respondents submitted numerous specimens of use in trademark records that appear to have been created for the purpose of circumventing USPTO use in commerce and specimen rules. In particular, the specimens depict goods allegedly for sale on ecommerce websites with accompanying invoices that contain false, fictitious or fraudulent information. These specimens appear to have been developed for no other purpose than to show use in commerce as part of trademark application submissions. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">For example, screenshots from 1981mall.com, which appears to be an e-commerce platform, were submitted as specimens in several applications by Respondents. However, this website appears to have been created solely for the purpose of generating specimens in trademark applications, and is not a legitimate e-commerce website that sells actual goods. The \u201cContact Us\u201d page on the website identifies a location of only \u201cUSA\u201d and the provided phone number, \u201c123456789,\u201d is merely a placeholder that does not even include the correct number of digits for a U.S. phone number.\u00a0 Further, several links on the website direct to blank pages, such as the \u201cAbout Us,\u201d \u201cDelivery Information,\u201d \u201cPrivacy Policy,\u201d and \u201cTerms &amp; Conditions\u201d links.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Respondents have until September 8, 2022 to provide a written response to this show cause order or face sanctions.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The full show cause order is available <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/TM-show-cause-order-Shenzhen-Haiyi.pdf\">here<\/a> and well worth reading.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">In a Show Cause Order dated August 25, 2022, the USPTO stated it has reason to believe that Shenzhen Haiyi Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. et al. &#8220;have provided false, fictitious or fraudulent information in thousands of trademark application and registration records.&#8221; Specifically, &#8220;Respondents have registered for, control, and\/or operate one or more USPTO.gov accounts responsible for submitting documents that included (1) the electronic signature of attorney Jeffrey Firestone, including filings signed and submitted after his death, and\/or (2) the signature &#8230;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\" class=\"button\">Continue Reading<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"coauthors":[22],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings - China IP Law Update<\/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:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings - China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a Show Cause Order dated August 25, 2022, the USPTO stated it has reason to believe that Shenzhen Haiyi Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. et al. &#8220;have provided false, fictitious or fraudulent information in thousands of trademark application and registration records.&#8221; Specifically, &#8220;Respondents have registered for, control, and\/or operate one or more USPTO.gov accounts responsible for submitting documents that included (1) the electronic signature of attorney Jeffrey Firestone, including filings signed and submitted after his death, and\/or (2) the signature ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-08-30T18:48:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-09-02T19:26:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Aaron Wininger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Aaron Wininger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\"},\"headline\":\"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-30T18:48:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-09-02T19:26:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\"},\"wordCount\":826,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Trademarks\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\",\"name\":\"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings - China IP Law Update\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-30T18:48:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-09-02T19:26:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\",\"name\":\"China IP Law Update\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"China IP Law Update\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png\",\"width\":240,\"height\":81,\"caption\":\"China IP Law Update\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\",\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2a4c57b1fc56e213ed27e140da54c8a1\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Aaron Wininger\"},\"description\":\"Aaron Wininger is a Principal and Director of the China Intellectual Property at Schwegman Lundberg &amp; Woessner.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/aaron-wininger\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/aaron-wininger-135113\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/author\/aaron-wininger\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings - China IP Law Update","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:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings - China IP Law Update","og_description":"In a Show Cause Order dated August 25, 2022, the USPTO stated it has reason to believe that Shenzhen Haiyi Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. et al. &#8220;have provided false, fictitious or fraudulent information in thousands of trademark application and registration records.&#8221; Specifically, &#8220;Respondents have registered for, control, and\/or operate one or more USPTO.gov accounts responsible for submitting documents that included (1) the electronic signature of attorney Jeffrey Firestone, including filings signed and submitted after his death, and\/or (2) the signature ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/","og_site_name":"China IP Law Update","article_published_time":"2022-08-30T18:48:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-09-02T19:26:05+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg"}],"author":"Aaron Wininger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Aaron Wininger","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/"},"author":{"name":"Aaron Wininger","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5"},"headline":"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings","datePublished":"2022-08-30T18:48:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-02T19:26:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/"},"wordCount":826,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg","articleSection":["Trademarks"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/","name":"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings - China IP Law Update","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg","datePublished":"2022-08-30T18:48:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-02T19:26:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Obituary.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2022\/08\/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"USPTO: Chinese Firms Used Dead Attorney to Submit U.S. Trademark Application Filings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/","name":"China IP Law Update","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization","name":"China IP Law Update","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png","width":240,"height":81,"caption":"China IP Law Update"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5","name":"Aaron Wininger","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2a4c57b1fc56e213ed27e140da54c8a1","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg","caption":"Aaron Wininger"},"description":"Aaron Wininger is a Principal and Director of the China Intellectual Property at Schwegman Lundberg &amp; Woessner.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/aaron-wininger\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/aaron-wininger-135113\/"],"url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/author\/aaron-wininger\/"}]}},"co_authors":[4],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2231"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2231"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2236,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2231\/revisions\/2236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2231"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}