贴牌加工遭遇商标侵权索赔，受托工厂要赔吗？

——从 PRETUL 案到本田案：裁判规则演进与实务应对

工厂“按单生产”却收到法院传票——当委托方指定加贴的商标被认定侵权，受托加工方是否也要承担赔偿责任？本文结合最高人民法院的裁判演进，梳理加工企业的风险边界与应对路径。

一、问题的提出

接受客户委托、按客户要求加贴指定商标生产产品（俗称“贴牌加工”“定牌加工”，OEM），是很多制造企业的日常业务。但工厂经营者常有一个疑问：商标是客户指定提供的、产品是客户提走的——如果这个商标侵犯了他人的注册商标专用权，工厂作为“照单生产”的一方，也要赔吗？

简要回答：不必然，但绝非高枕无忧。近十年司法实践经历过明显的观点变化，工厂是否担责，取决于一系列具体事实。

二、法律焦点：贴牌加工是否构成“商标的使用”

《商标法》第四十八条规定，商标的使用，是指将商标用于商品、商品包装或者容器以及商品交易文书上，或者用于广告宣传、展览以及其他商业活动中，用于识别商品来源的行为。第五十七条第（一）（二）项进一步明确：未经许可，在同一种或类似商品上使用与他人注册商标相同或近似的商标、容易导致混淆的，属侵犯注册商标专用权。

贴牌加工中，工厂客观上把商标贴附在了商品上——形式要件上落入“使用”的范围。真正的争点在于：当产品全部出口交付境外委托方、不在国内市场流通时，这种“使用”是否会损害国内注册商标的识别功能、是否可能造成国内相关公众的混淆。

三、裁判规则的演进：从 PRETUL 案到本田案

第一阶段（2015年前后）· 不侵权立场占主导。最高人民法院在“PRETUL”案〔（2014）民提字第38号〕中明确：判断是否构成商标侵权，应以是否破坏商标的识别功能为基础；涉外定牌加工产品全部出口、不在国内销售，商标贴附行为未发挥识别来源的功能，不构成侵权。其后多个案件延续了这一思路，实务中逐渐归纳出“不侵权三要件”：
① 境外委托方在商品销售目的国对贴牌商标享有真实有效的注册商标权；
② 存在明确合法的委托加工关系；
③ 加工产品全部出口、不进入国内市场。

第二阶段（2019年）· 本田案改判，规则收紧。2019年9月23日，最高人民法院在“本田案”〔（2019）最高法民再138号〕中再审改判：受托方接受缅甸市场委托加工“HONDAKIT”摩托车，最高法认定被诉标识与本田公司权利商标构成近似、具有混淆可能性，贴牌行为构成商标法意义上的使用，判令停止侵权并赔偿损失。该案入选当年中国法院十大知识产权案件。核心转变在于：定牌加工不再是当然的免责事由，审查重心回到商标近似与混淆可能性的综合判断。

第三阶段（近年）· 个案审查成为常态。近年司法实践继续在个案中校准边界：产品流向、委托方权利基础、受托方审查义务的履行情况等事实对结论影响显著——既有认定定牌加工不侵权的判例，也有认定构成侵权的判例。“一刀切”让位于精细化审查，这意味着加工企业能否“全身而退”，很大程度上取决于接单与生产环节的合规动作与证据留存。

四、工厂是否需要赔偿：五个判断要点

结合裁判要点与实务经验，受托工厂的责任判断通常围绕以下要素展开：
1. 委托方的权利基础是否真实。委托方是否为商标在目标市场的注册人或合法被许可人？注册证、授权链、主体资质是否真实有效？假冒“客户”骗单、伪造授权的并不罕见。
2. 产品的实际流向。是否全部出口？有无回流国内市场的渠道或证据？报关单、物流单证是否完整留存？
3. 工厂的审查义务履行情况。接单时是否核验了商标权利文件与交易背景？有无合理的注意措施记录？
4. 工厂的主观状态。善意、过失还是明知？订单价格、包装要求、交易方式中是否存在“异常信号”而未引起注意？
5. 可主张的抗辩路径。《商标法》第六十四条第二款规定：销售不知道是侵权商品，能证明该商品是自己合法取得并说明提供者的，不承担赔偿责任。加工方应结合自身角色，主张不构成侵权或主观无过错；并可评估注册人“三年未使用”等抗辩思路。

需要提示的是：即便免于赔偿责任，停止生产、停止侵害等民事责任仍可能被要求承担——及时止损与免责抗辩同等重要。

五、给加工企业的合规清单

接单前·三重审查：委托方主体与资信审查；商标权利文件审查（注册证、授权链条、权利的地域范围）；产品流向与出口计划审查。

签约时·两条防线：知识产权担保与赔偿条款（委托方保证权利真实性，承诺承担因权利瑕疵给工厂造成的损失）；产品全部出口、不得内销的流向控制条款。

被诉后·三步应对：第一时间停止涉案产品生产，防止损失扩大；固定合同、审查记录、出口单证等证据；评估不侵权抗辩与责任空间，及时委托专业律师介入。

六、结语

贴牌加工的法律风险，本质上是“订单真实性”的风险。工厂无法控制客户的商标是否侵权，但可以控制自己是否尽到审查义务、是否留下证据。把审查义务前置、把证据留在手里——这既是抵御索赔的盾，也是向优质客户展示专业度的名片。

（本文为普法文章，不构成对具体案件的法律意见。）

 

English Version

Trademark Infringement Claims in OEM Manufacturing: Does the Contract Factory Have to Pay?

From PRETUL to Honda: the evolution of case law and practical responses. By Du Yiliang, Guangdong Junwu Law Firm.

A factory produces goods strictly to order and then receives a court summons: when a trademark designated by the client is found to infringe, is the contract manufacturer also liable for damages? Drawing on the evolution of the Supreme People's Court's case law, this article maps the boundaries of risk and the possible responses for processing enterprises.

I. The Problem

Producing goods to a client's order with a designated mark affixed (known as tie-pai jia-gong, or OEM manufacturing) is routine business for many manufacturers. Yet factory operators often ask: the mark was designated and supplied by the client, and the products were collected by the client. If that mark infringes another party's registered trademark, is the factory, which merely produced to order, also liable?

The short answer: not necessarily, but far from a safe harbour. Judicial practice over the past decade has shifted noticeably, and whether a factory is held liable depends on a series of specific facts.

II. The Legal Focus: Does OEM Production Constitute "Use" of a Trademark?

Article 48 of the PRC Trademark Law defines trademark use as affixing a mark to goods, packaging, containers or transaction documents, or using it in advertising, exhibitions or other commercial activities, to identify the source of the goods. Article 57(1) and (2) further provide that using a mark identical or similar to a registered trademark on identical or similar goods in a manner likely to cause confusion constitutes infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark.

In OEM production, the factory objectively affixes the mark to the goods, formally falling within "use". The real question is whether, where all products are exported and delivered to an overseas client and never circulate in the domestic market, such use undermines the identifying function of the domestic registered trademark or is likely to confuse the relevant Chinese public.

III. The Evolution of the Case Law: From PRETUL to Honda

Phase one (around 2015): non-infringement prevailed. In the "PRETUL" case ((2014) Min Ti Zi No. 38), the Supreme People's Court held that whether infringement is established should be assessed by whether the identifying function of the mark is impaired; where all goods of overseas OEM production are exported and not sold domestically, affixing the mark does not perform a source-identifying function and does not constitute infringement. Subsequent cases followed this approach, distilling three requirements for non-infringement: (1) the overseas client holds a genuine and valid registered trademark in the destination market; (2) a clear and lawful processing relationship exists; and (3) all products are exported and do not enter the domestic market.

Phase two (2019): the Honda case reversed course. On 23 September 2019, on retrial in the "Honda" case ((2019) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 138), the Supreme People's Court reversed the lower courts: the manufacturer produced "HONDAKIT" motorcycles for the Myanmar market; the Court held the disputed sign similar to Honda's registered trademarks and likely to cause confusion, found the affixing to constitute trademark use, and ordered cessation of infringement and payment of damages. The case was selected among China's Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of the year. The key shift: OEM production is no longer an automatic defence; the focus returns to a comprehensive assessment of similarity and likelihood of confusion.

Phase three (recent years): case-by-case review is the norm. Courts continue to calibrate the boundary case by case: the destination of the products, the client's rights basis and the manufacturer's performance of review duties weigh heavily on outcomes. Some rulings find no infringement; others find infringement. One-size-fits-all has given way to refined review: a factory's ability to walk away unscathed depends largely on its compliance steps and evidence record at the ordering and production stages.

IV. Does the Factory Have to Pay? Five Points of Assessment

1. Is the client's rights basis genuine? Is the client the registered owner or a lawful licensee in the target market? Are the registration certificate, chain of authorisation and corporate credentials genuine and valid? Fraudulent "clients" are not rare.
2. Actual destination of the goods. All exported? Any channel or evidence of re-entry into the domestic market? Are customs and logistics documents fully preserved?
3. Performance of review duties. Were trademark documents and the transaction background checked when taking the order? Is there any record of reasonable diligence?
4. The factory's state of mind. Good faith, negligence, or knowledge? Were abnormal signals in pricing, packaging requirements or transaction patterns overlooked?
5. Available defences. Article 64(2) of the Trademark Law provides that a party selling goods it did not know to be infringing, which can prove lawful acquisition and identify the supplier, bears no liability for damages. Manufacturers should assert, in light of their role, that no infringement exists or that they were without fault, and may also assess defences such as the registered owner's three-year non-use.

Note that even where damages are avoided, civil liabilities such as cessation of production and of infringement may still be imposed. Stopping the bleeding matters as much as mounting defences.

V. A Compliance Checklist for Processing Enterprises

Before taking the order: triple review. The client's credentials and creditworthiness; trademark documents (certificate, chain of authorisation, territorial scope); product destination and export plan.

When signing: two lines of defence. IP warranties and indemnities (the client warrants genuine rights and undertakes to bear losses caused by defects in rights); destination-control clauses (all products exported, no domestic sales).

When sued: three steps. Immediately stop production of the products concerned to prevent further loss; preserve the contract, diligence records and export documents; assess the non-infringement defence and exposure, and engage professional counsel promptly.

VI. Conclusion

The legal risk of OEM manufacturing is, at bottom, the risk of "order authenticity". A factory cannot control whether its client's trademark infringes, but it can control whether it performs its review duties and keeps records. Front-load the review and keep the evidence: a shield against claims, and a calling card of professionalism to quality clients.

(This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific case.)