{"id":598,"date":"2020-07-23T18:40:28","date_gmt":"2020-07-23T18:40:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?p=598"},"modified":"2021-03-08T05:10:33","modified_gmt":"2021-03-08T05:10:33","slug":"under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/","title":{"rendered":"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court in Trademark Battle"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a <a href=\"http:\/\/wenshu.court.gov.cn\/website\/wenshu\/181107ANFZ0BXSK4\/index.html?docId=e7d854fec01448199110abfa01171373\">decision dated July 17, 2020<\/a>, China&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.court.gov.cn\/\">Supreme People&#8217;s Court<\/a> ruled for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.underarmour.com\/en-us\/\">Under Armour, Inc.<\/a> against Fujian Tingfeilong Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. (\u798f\u5efa\u7701\u5ef7\u98de\u9f99\u4f53\u80b2\u7528\u54c1\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Under Armour was founded in 1996 and as of 2018 had almost $5 billion USD in annual revenue selling sportswear, such as clothing and running shoes.\u00a0 In contrast, Tingfeilong launched the brand &#8220;Uncle Martian&#8221; in 2016 in China also in the sportswear field. As can be seen below, the Uncle Martian logo is extremely similar to the Under Armour logo. Unsurprisingly, Under Armour immediately sued Tingfeilong for trademark infringement and unfair competition and, also unsurprisingly, won.\u00a0 The Supreme People&#8217;s Court has just affirmed that ruling.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-602\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"612\" height=\"245\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg 612w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2-300x120.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 984px) 61vw, (max-width: 1362px) 45vw, 600px\" \/><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Under Armour has multiple registered Chinese trademarks, which served as the basis for the claim of infringement,\u00a0 including No. 12165772 &#8220;Under Armour&#8221; in class 28; No. 3463214 &#8220;UNDERARMOUR&#8221; in class 25; No. 7329995\u00a0 &#8220;UNDERARMOUR&#8221; also class 25; No. G996450 &#8220;UNDERARMOUR&#8221; class 25; No. G996450 &#8220;UNDERARMOUR&#8221; class 28, Trademark No. 3479748 for the logo in class 25, and a Chinese-language equivalent of &#8220;Under Armour.&#8221;<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_600\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-600\" style=\"width: 1001px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-600\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA-registered-mark.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1001\" height=\"982\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA-registered-mark.jpg 1001w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA-registered-mark-300x294.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA-registered-mark-768x753.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA-registered-mark-24x24.jpg 24w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA-registered-mark-48x48.jpg 48w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 1362px) 62vw, 840px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-600\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Under Armour&#8217;s Registered Chinese Trademark No. 3479748 in class 25<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The court of first instance held that Tingfeilong was the correct defendant as it had infringed as evidenced at least by the use of the logo on investment promotion advertisements and at a brand press conference, which connected the logo&#8217;s use to Tingfeilong .<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_601\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-601\" style=\"width: 950px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-601\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/PressAnnouncement.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"950\" height=\"534\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/PressAnnouncement.png 950w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/PressAnnouncement-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/PressAnnouncement-768x432.png 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 1362px) 62vw, 840px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-601\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Uncle Martian Press Conference<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>This infringement constituted trademark infringement. Regarding trademark infringement, the brand press conference featuring the logo, the investment promotion advertisements featuring the logo, the logo used on the business premises, the logo used on brochures, shoes and a basketball having the logo displayed in a sample room, wristbands and t-shirts with the logo, etc. all identify the source of goods.\u00a0 After a comparison of the Uncle Martian logo with the registered marks to Under Armour, the Court of First Instance held &#8220;Tingfeilong\u2019s claim that there is a difference in the design style and overall appearance between the logo and the trademark of Under Armour is not accepted due to insufficient factual and legal basis.&#8221; However, Tingfeilong&#8217;s use of the brand name &#8220;Uncle Martian&#8221; was not infringing.<\/p>\n<p>The Court of First instance also ruled there was unfair competition because Tingfeilong used &#8220;Under Armour (China) Co., Ltd.&#8221; on its business card despite having no relationship with Under Armour.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the Court of First Instance issued an injunction, required destruction of infringing products, payment of damages of 2 million RMB (~$286 thousand USD), and publish a public apology.<\/p>\n<p>On appeal, the Supreme People&#8217;s Court upheld the verdict stating &#8220;Tingfeilong\u2019s appeal request cannot be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment has clearly established the facts and the applicable law is correct and should be maintained.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This ruling follows a string of trademark and unfair competition victories for foreigners including <a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/michael-jordan-prevails-in-eight-year-trademark-battle-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court\/\">Michael Jordan<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/04\/new-balance-scores-chinese-unfair-competition-victory-against-new-barlun\/\">New Balance<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/02\/chinas-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-christian-louboutins-red-sole-trademark\/\">Christian Louboutin<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">In a decision dated July 17, 2020, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court ruled for Under Armour, Inc. against Fujian Tingfeilong Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. (\u798f\u5efa\u7701\u5ef7\u98de\u9f99\u4f53\u80b2\u7528\u54c1\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Under Armour was founded in 1996 and as of 2018 had almost $5 billion USD in annual revenue selling sportswear, such as clothing and running shoes.\u00a0 In contrast, Tingfeilong launched the brand &#8220;Uncle Martian&#8221; in 2016 in China also in the sportswear field. As can be seen below, the Uncle &#8230;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\" 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],"tags":[],"coauthors":[22],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#039;s Supreme People&#039;s Court in Trademark Battle - 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\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#039;s Supreme People&#039;s Court in Trademark Battle - China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a decision dated July 17, 2020, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court ruled for Under Armour, Inc. against Fujian Tingfeilong Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. (\u798f\u5efa\u7701\u5ef7\u98de\u9f99\u4f53\u80b2\u7528\u54c1\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Under Armour was founded in 1996 and as of 2018 had almost $5 billion USD in annual revenue selling sportswear, such as clothing and running shoes.\u00a0 In contrast, Tingfeilong launched the brand &#8220;Uncle Martian&#8221; in 2016 in China also in the sportswear field. As can be seen below, the Uncle ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-07-23T18:40:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-08T05:10:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.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=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\"},\"headline\":\"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court in Trademark Battle\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-23T18:40:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-08T05:10:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\"},\"wordCount\":487,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case\",\"Trademarks\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\",\"name\":\"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China's Supreme People's Court in Trademark Battle - China IP Law Update\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-23T18:40:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-08T05:10:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court in Trademark Battle\"}]},{\"@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":"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China's Supreme People's Court in Trademark Battle - 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\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China's Supreme People's Court in Trademark Battle - China IP Law Update","og_description":"In a decision dated July 17, 2020, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court ruled for Under Armour, Inc. against Fujian Tingfeilong Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. (\u798f\u5efa\u7701\u5ef7\u98de\u9f99\u4f53\u80b2\u7528\u54c1\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Under Armour was founded in 1996 and as of 2018 had almost $5 billion USD in annual revenue selling sportswear, such as clothing and running shoes.\u00a0 In contrast, Tingfeilong launched the brand &#8220;Uncle Martian&#8221; in 2016 in China also in the sportswear field. As can be seen below, the Uncle ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/","og_site_name":"China IP Law Update","article_published_time":"2020-07-23T18:40:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-08T05:10:33+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg"}],"author":"Aaron Wininger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Aaron Wininger","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/"},"author":{"name":"Aaron Wininger","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5"},"headline":"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court in Trademark Battle","datePublished":"2020-07-23T18:40:28+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-08T05:10:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/"},"wordCount":487,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg","articleSection":["Case","Trademarks"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/","name":"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China's Supreme People's Court in Trademark Battle - China IP Law Update","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg","datePublished":"2020-07-23T18:40:28+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-08T05:10:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/UA2.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2020\/07\/under-armour-defeats-uncle-martian-at-chinas-supreme-peoples-court-in-trademark-battle\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Under Armour Defeats Uncle Martian at China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court in Trademark Battle"}]},{"@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\/598"}],"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=598"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/598\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":605,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/598\/revisions\/605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=598"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}