{"id":350,"date":"2020-04-16T22:00:08","date_gmt":"2020-04-16T22:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?p=350"},"modified":"2021-03-08T05:11:14","modified_gmt":"2021-03-08T05:11:14","slug":"new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/","title":{"rendered":"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On April 16, 2020, the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pdfy.gov.cn\/\">Shanghai Pudong New District People’s Court<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/mp.weixin.qq.com\/s\/xmRUcO9q4Hvf4yz648MEzQ\">ruled<\/a> for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newbalance.com.cn\/id\/gushi-2.html\">New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd.<\/a> (\u65b0\u767e\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter New Balance) against <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nbl-china.com\/\">Niu Ba Lun (China) Co., Ltd.<\/a> (\u7ebd\u5df4\u4f26\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter, New Barlun), awarding 10.8 million RMB (about $1.53 million USD) for unfair competition.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Fujian-based New Barlun is an athletic apparel and shoe manufacturer having a slanted N logo on their products. Both products and logo are similar to New Balance’s. Massachusetts-based New Balance Athletics, Inc. is an American athletic apparel and shoe company\u00a0 founded in 1906 with annual revenue of $4.1 billion.\u00a0 New Balance is a Chinese subsidiary of the the U.S. company. New Balance argued the continued use of the New Barlun logo, which is extremely similar in appearance and placement on athletic shoes, was unfair competition, leading to a loss to New Balance in reputation and goodwill.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_351\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-351\" style=\"width: 542px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-351\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"542\" height=\"183\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg 542w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes-300x101.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 542px) 85vw, 542px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-351\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">New Balance on Left, New Barlun on Right.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>New Barlun argued in defense that is had a trademark on it’s logo and therefore was entitled to use it.\u00a0 Specifically, New Barlun is the owner of Chinese trademark 4236766.\u00a0 New Balance also has a Chinese trademark on its logo.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_352\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-352\" style=\"width: 544px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-352\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBTMs.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"544\" height=\"209\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBTMs.jpg 544w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBTMs-300x115.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 544px) 85vw, 544px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-352\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Left: New Balance’s registered trademark No. 5942394<br \/>\nRight: New Barlun’s registered trademark No. 4236766<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><span>The Shanghai Pudong Court held that, through long-term publicity and repeated use,\u00a0 the relevant public has sufficiently associated the products decorated with N letters on both sides of the athletic shoes with the “New Balance,” so that the logo has become a source of identification. The distinctive feature, such as the N letter decoration on\u00a0 the shoe has achieved the status of “commodity decoration with certain influence.” <\/span><span>Judging from relevant publicity reports, judicial judgments, etc., the logo had formed a “have a certain impact” before the date of the defendant’s No. 4236766 registered trademark application date.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The exclusive right to use a registered trademark is obtained through an administrative authorization process at the Chinese Trademark Office. \u201cCommodity decoration with certain influence\u201d is a civil right protected by the Unfair Competition law by acknowledging its de facto existence. The two are separate types of intellectual property rights with different scopes and durations.\u00a0 <\/span><span>While the current action may cause both trademark infringement and unfair competition at the same time, they are different legal causes of action and the right holder can clearly choose which claim(s) to pursue.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Court went on to say, <span>when dealing with conflicts between different market entities based on trademarks or decoration and other signs, they should follow the principle of good faith, not only to protect prior rights and interests, but also to prevent market confusion. <\/span><span>The New Barlun logo is similar to New Balance’s logo, causing confusion. Even if the logo is a registered trademark, it violates the principle of good faith due to its infringement on the previous rights and interests.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As a competitor in the same industry, New Barlun still uses the similar logo on the same position of the similar goods it produces when it knows that the N letter logo on both sides of the plaintiff’s shoes has a certain influence, which reduces the plaintiff’s goodwill and causes market confusion.\u00a0 This causes consumers to confuse and misidentify the source of the goods, which violates the principles of good faith and recognized business ethics and constitutes unfair competition.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the Court issued an injunction to stop further unfair competition, awarded 10 million RMB in damages and another 800,000 RMB for rights enforcement.\u00a0 As of April 17, 2020, New Barlun continues to use the logo on its website.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-353\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NewBarlun-Logo.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"166\" height=\"84\" \/><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">On April 16, 2020, the Shanghai Pudong New District People’s Court ruled for New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u767e\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter New Balance) against Niu Ba Lun (China) Co., Ltd. (\u7ebd\u5df4\u4f26\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter, New Barlun), awarding 10.8 million RMB (about $1.53 million USD) for unfair competition.<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\" 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":[28,4,34],"tags":[],"coauthors":[22],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun - 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\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun - China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On April 16, 2020, the Shanghai Pudong New District People’s Court ruled for New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u767e\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter New Balance) against Niu Ba Lun (China) Co., Ltd. (\u7ebd\u5df4\u4f26\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter, New Barlun), awarding 10.8 million RMB (about $1.53 million USD) for unfair competition.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-16T22:00:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-08T05:11:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\"},\"headline\":\"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-16T22:00:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-08T05:11:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\"},\"wordCount\":598,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case\",\"Trademarks\",\"Unfair Competition\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\",\"name\":\"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun - China IP Law Update\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-16T22:00:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-08T05:11:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun\"}]},{\"@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 & 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":"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun - 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\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun - China IP Law Update","og_description":"On April 16, 2020, the Shanghai Pudong New District People’s Court ruled for New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u767e\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter New Balance) against Niu Ba Lun (China) Co., Ltd. (\u7ebd\u5df4\u4f26\uff08\u4e2d\u56fd\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8, hereinafter, New Barlun), awarding 10.8 million RMB (about $1.53 million USD) for unfair competition.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/","og_site_name":"China IP Law Update","article_published_time":"2020-04-16T22:00:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-08T05:11:14+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg"}],"author":"Aaron Wininger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Aaron Wininger","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/"},"author":{"name":"Aaron Wininger","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5"},"headline":"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun","datePublished":"2020-04-16T22:00:08+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-08T05:11:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/"},"wordCount":598,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg","articleSection":["Case","Trademarks","Unfair Competition"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/","name":"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun - China IP Law Update","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg","datePublished":"2020-04-16T22:00:08+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-08T05:11:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/NBShoes.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Balance Scores Chinese Unfair Competition Victory Against New Barlun"}]},{"@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 & 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\/350"}],"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=350"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":354,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350\/revisions\/354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}