When signing a license contract, the parties often lack awareness of risk control and fail to consider relevant important matters, resulting in an increased probability of trademark infringement disputes. For example, after the expiration of the trademark use license contract, the licensee continues to sell inventory goods and is sued for trademark infringement, which is one of the numerous disputes. Due to the lag and limitations of the law, the legal application scale for this issue is different, and there are significant differences in litigation and judgment, which to some extent affects the judicial authority and the seriousness of the law.

Viewpoint 1: 'Infringement theory'.

It is believed that after the expiration of the license contract, inventory products cannot be sold. If they are still sold, it constitutes infringement. Because trademark rights are exclusive and exclusive, after the expiration of the trademark use license contract, the licensee loses its legal basis. If it continues to be used, it infringes on the licensor's trademark rights

Viewpoint 2: "Non infringement theory".

We believe that after the license contract expires, we can continue to sell inventory products. The main reason is the exhaustion of rights rule. Once the licensor transfers the product with the trademark to the licensee and obtains the corresponding consideration, the licensee obtains ownership of the inventory goods. If the licensor interferes with the subsequent circulation of the inventory goods, it will undoubtedly seriously restrict the circulation of the goods.

Viewpoint three: 'Comprehensive consideration theory'.

Whether the inventory products can continue to be sold after the expiration of the license contract needs to be weighed against the interests of the parties and social interests. If there is an agreement in the trademark use license contract or the parties reach an agreement on this issue, it shall be handled according to the agreement of the parties. If there is no agreement or if the parties cannot reach an agreement, a reasonable sales period may be determined based on the specific situation。

In summary, the above viewpoints have their own reasonable aspects, but there are also certain flaws in both theory and practice. The intangible nature of intellectual property determines the determination of its rights boundary, which is particularly important. It is necessary to adhere to the principle of intellectual property legality and clarify the important matters of the design trademark use license contract. Determining the boundaries of rights solely through the interpretation of the law by judges is only a temporary measure without legal provisions, and it will bring many uncertainties, which is not conducive to clarifying legal expectations and protecting commodity transactions.