The Research For Original Equipment Manufacturers Production Of Trademark Infringement

Starting with two cases-Shenda LTD. v. Jolida LTD., and LACOSTE v. Dahuaimport and export LTD., the essay describes two opposite judgments based on similarfacts. As for the disputes of whether OEM infringes the trademark or not, the authorsupport the view of non-infringement, based on the confusion principle and thebalance of all parts’ interests. The essay also states the conception of OEM, as well asthe legal feature. Combined with China’s Trademark Law, the author puts forwardsome proposals to prevent the risks in OEM.The essay falls into three parts-preface, main body, and concluding remarks.In the preface, combined existing status of OEM and disputes, the author tells usthe purpose of discussing whether OEM infringes the trademark or not, and then putsforward some proposals to improve the OEM legal system.The main body has four parts.The first chapter is "the opposite judgments of OEM cases". This chapterdescribes two cases-Shenda LTD. v. Jolida LTD., and LACOSTE v. Dahua importand export LTD., and the reasons of why these two similar cases lead to differentresults.The second chapter is "the legal regulation and the predicament of OEM". This chapter is divided into three sections, dividedly introducing the legal regulation ofOEM, the current statues of the legislation, and the controversy of whether OEMinfringes the trademark or not.The third chapter is "the conclusion of non-infringement". The author supportsthe view of non-infringement, because of three reasons. As for the lack of confusionprinciple in China’s Trademark Law, learning from the experience of Europe andAmerica is essential for us. The similar cases in Taiwan also can be the reference forus. The balance of all parts’ interests will also benefit for China’s economic growth.The forth chapter is "the proposal for OEM legally". Based on the lack ofconfusion principle in China’s Trademark Law, the author putts forwardcorresponding countermeasures from the legislative level.In the concluding remarks, based on the analysis of the main body, the authorstates her conclusion of non-infringement, as well as some proposals for OEM,legally.