司法裁判之所以对涉外定牌加工案件的认定思路不一、结论呈现前后反复,系司法政策的不当干预及法律适用、解释存在偏差所致。应当摒弃政策因素,回归立法本义,统一侵权要件,并准确把握其定性类事实特征,回归商标法基本法理与规范目的进行解释。定牌加工的商品存在出口前违约流入市场、出口后回流国内市场等可能性,消费者亦存在接触、混淆与消费的可能性。因此,国内加工企业接受境外合法商标权人的委托,但未经国内商标注册人许可,在同一种或类似商品上贴附与其注册商标相同或近似的商标并代工生产的,构成对注册商标专用权的侵犯,且不以实际损害的发生为限。企业应承担无过错责任,并根据所尽审查与注意程度确定损害赔偿数额。The inconsistent judicial determination and fluctuating conclusions in foreign-related OEM processing cases are attributed to the improper intervention of judicial policies and deviations in the application and interpretation of laws. It is necessary to abandon policy factors, return to the original legislative intent, unify the elements of infringement, and accurately grasp the qualitative factual characteristics. The interpretation should be based on the fundamental principles and regulatory purposes of trademark law. There is a possibility that OEM processed goods may enter the market before export due to breach of contract or re-enter the domestic market after export. Consumers also have the possibility of contact, confusion and consumption. Therefore, if domestic processing enterprises accept the commission of foreign legitimate trademark owners but do not obtain the permission of domestic trademark registrants, and affix trademarks identical or similar to their registered trademarks on the same or similar goods for OEM processing, it constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark, and is not limited to the occurrence of actual dam
