One, the basic situation

In 2012, TRAb ruled 52000 cases of Trademark Review and adjudication, the parties refused to accept the verdict, lodge an administrative lawsuit in the Beijing first intermediate people's court cases 2525 pieces, accounting for 4.86% of the number of cases of Trademark Review Award, flat with 2011's prosecution rate; cases of trademark review into the Beijing higher people's Court of second instance procedure 919 the Supreme People's court for retrial; into hearing procedure or retrial procedure of 52 cases.

In 2012, TRAb received the court verdict in 2143 copies, two trial to trial 903, 52. The court has accepted the case in 2012, TRAb administrative litigation overall successful rate was 79.6%, the first and second win rate were 82.3% and 73.2%.

 

Two, the main features

(a) the number of administrative litigation cases appear larger growth again

Since 2008, the number of cases to judges has experienced substantial growth and stable stage two. Among them, 2008-2010 years, for cases of trademark review concluded volume increased significantly, resulting in the rapid growth in the number of cases to review, 2009 litigationA total of 1843 pieces of,For theThe total 2004-2008 amount of five years of administrative litigation. 2010Responding to the caseA total of 2828, than in 2009 increased by 53.4%. In 2011, due to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Cases along with basically the same as in 2010, and the administrative proceedings prosecution rate has decreased, the number of administrative lawsuits to stop a few years ago a substantial growth, a trial of second instance and retrial, a total of 2663 cases, with a small decline in 2010. In 2012, TRAb innovation mechanism, deepen the review efficiency construction, the trial record, a growth of 48.4% in 2011, which led to review the case number has increased again. In 2012 the administrative litigation cases in 2011 than the total growth of 31.3%, the second instance and retrial case quantity with basically the same as in 2011, the growth in the number of cases of administrative litigation is mainly embodied in the case of trial, 2012 first responding than in 2011 growth 821, an increase of 48.2%.

(two) compared with the judges and court focus and in great changes

2012 annual main causes of lost ratio and with the same statistical changes shown in the table below:

	2012	2011
Similar trademarks	24%	29%
Similar goods	24%	17%
Adoption of new evidence	10%	3%
Article ten a (eight) "adverse effects"	6%	8%
Article thirteen paragraph two	5%	2%
The first half of thirty-one	5%	7%
Significant	5%	5%
On burden of proofAllocation of responsibilities	4%	0.7%
Article thirty-one the second half	4%	7%
To change the situation	0.8%	6%

 

Analysis on the table data can be seen, in 2012, focus the judges and court in 2011 has changed. Among them, the ratio decreased significantly due to the change of circumstances which led to lose, from 24 in 2011 to 5, accounted for only 0.8% of the proportion of court cases; both sides at the same approximate estimation, tenth a (eight) "adverse effects" and the thirty-first applies also to reduce the differences. This means that the full communication, our commission and court in the presence of the circumstance change case processing and "adverse effects" clause, the thirty-first malicious cybersquatting criteria, trademark rights and prior rights conflict criterion, gradually formed a consensus.

However, more concern is several significantly increased the proportion of losing reason.One is theAs the goods against similar to determine the proportion of cases increased by 7%, for the first time with similar trademarks become one of the primary reasons I lost.TwoNew evidence for court and court cases increased greatly, which become the exception of similar trademarks and commodity similar decision third big causes of lost. The judges and the court in administrative proceedings should be whether the new party fails to submit the evidence admissibility in assessment procedures without justified reasons differences long-standing, but this year the number of cases is not lost, lost the case accounted for a lower proportion of the total. In 2012, TRAb so court cases has reached 62, the proportion of climbed from 3% in 2011 to 10%.ThreeOur commission and the court in the evaluation of materials by the allocation of the burden of proof on the differences between the obvious, because in 2012 the court thinks I Committee has not complete the review material has been served on the party's burden of proof and lost in 24 cases, accounted for 4% the total number of court cases, and cases in 2011 due to the service had only 3 pieces, accounting for all the losing case 0.7%.FourI appointed for thirteen two applicable court cases has increased by 3%, become one of the main reasons I lost.

Analysis of three, specific circumstances

(a) determination of similar goods

The judges and court long-standing in similar merchandise decision problem on the differences, and showed increasing trend. In 2009 the court and I appointed in similar goods issue opinion caused our commission against the first and second instance cases have a total of 22 pieces, accounting for all court cases 9%; 2010, only one instance of the cause of court cases has reached 36 pieces, losing in the first instance cases accounted for 12%; in 2011, the first instance so why lose the case for 38 pieces, losing in the first instance cases accounted for 18%; 2012, only the first half of the first instance cases cause had reached 27 pieces, losing in the first instance cases accounted for 19%, the second half because commodity similar to determine the number and proportion of court cases is even more sharply, respectively 61 and 25%. In 2012, because of the commodity similar judgment court cases first and for the same approximate decision court cases has the same number, become one of the leading causes of TRAb lost.

The court and I appointed in commodity similar to determine differences are mainly embodied in the following three situations:One is theI appoint according to "similar goods and services to distinguish table" (hereinafter referred to distinguish table) decision does not constitute a similar goods / services, and the court through different table, believed to pose a similar goods / services, this is the main reason I lost.TwoI consider malicious, commodity Association, the cited trademark awareness or originality of breakthrough to distinguish table, constitute a similar goods / services, while the courts that do not constitute a similar goods / services, for example in the No. 1610058th "Midea" trademark objection review case, I appointed a breakthrough to distinguish table definition"Lamp, flashlight, faucet, bathroom device "and" electric rice cooker, water heater, electric fan, lampblack machine, induction cooker, microwave oven "for similar goods, the court of first instance that do not constitute a similar goods; in the" HONG and figure No. 3752504th "Trademark objection review case, I appointed a breakthrough that distinguish table lamp, vehicle lamp and lighting device similar goods, the court of first instance that do not constitute a similar goods; in the 3210559th," MCSAUTOMATIC "trademark dispute case, No. 3795195th" MGSAUTOMATIC "trademark objection review, I appointed a breakthrough to distinguish table, that" electric scissors, electric knife "and" scissors, shears, scissors "similar goods, the court of first instance that do not constitute a similar goods.ThreeI appoint according to different table constitute similar goods / services, while the courts that do not constitute a similar goods / services, such as theG921363No. "thePowerOfBeingGlobal and map "trademark barge reply ad litem, the court of first instance shall belong to the 3908 group of" power supply service "and" automobile transportation, storage, transport liquefied gas station, "determined to be a similar service, the decision to withdraw the TRAb decision.

About the similar goods, have the following two issues need to be clarified:

1 different table in the determination of similar questions on the role of commodity

Different table is China's trademark authority provided by WIPO "trademark registered by the international classification of goods and services" (Kniss classification) as the foundation, in the long-term practice of Trademark Review in consideration of the factors of China's market the product function, use, production department, sales channels, consumer, and service purposes, content,, object and other aspects of the summary, has the features of openness, consistency and stability.

Distinguish between tables in the trademark registration procedures and procedures for trademark rights, trademark infringement disputes procedure different procedures similar to determine goodsOn theEffect should be distinguished. In the trademark registration procedures, should take the administrative efficiency first, fairness principle, declaration, commodity classification of goods and the goods specified in the similar judgment, to distinguish between the table as the basis. In 2012, the Trademark Office received a total of 1648000 trademark registration applications for trademark registration, 122.7 reviewMillion, to distinguish table has important meaning to facilitate and regulate the application for trademark registration, trademark registration review efficiency, improve administrative decision consistency.

Unlike the trademark registration procedures, procedures for trademark rights and trademark infringement disputes procedure is to solve the dispute of tort of trademark rights and set up in the processing procedures, have actual trademark ownership dispute or infringement disputes procedure, fairness and efficiency balance should be inclined to the fair, in order to pursue the legal effect of the application of fair value orientation, for similar goods is judged according to the specific circumstances of the case decision. Moreover, different table is based on the Kniss classification is the basis of the names, from "Kniss classification of trademarkRegistered by theThe international classification of goods and services "that, the classification for trademark registration procedures, to establish a common trademark registered by the international classification of goods system. Therefore, in the procedures for trademark rights and trademark infringement dispute procedures, the commodity similar judgment can refer to distinguish the classification of,ButShould not be too rigid. But at the same time, it is worth mentioning that, in the procedures for trademark rights, distinguish the table although in principle only as a reference, but objectively can still and played an important role in. Although I Commission in 2012 because the court through different table and the number of court cases has increased, but the proportion of the total 148 pieces in all responding cases was 4.8%, the total commission ruling cases accounted for only 0.2%. This fully shows that the distinction between commodity classification table is consistent with general cognitive standard objective attributes and consumer goods for the classification of goods, the reference table to determine distinguish similar goods in trademark administrative jurisdiction procedure, which can greatly improve the administrative efficiency, in most cases also reached the objective and fair.

To sum up, should be objective understanding of different table in the commodity similar decision process. In the registration process, should be based on the principle of efficiency priority, in strict accordance with the distinction between tables in the classification of goods to designated goods declaration, trademark classification and trademark registration review. The procedures for trademark rights and trademark infringement dispute procedure, priority should be given to the principle of fairness, to avoid misleading the public confusion, to prevent malicious cybersquatting and malicious cling trademark goodwill, trademark infringement against for the purpose, according to the objective attributes and the specific circumstances of the case of goods goods similar and not comprehensive determination, distinguish the table can be used as reference on the basis of, but not rigid application.

Consideration of 2 commodity similar judgement

To consider factors analyzed the commodity similar to decide, should first clear the purpose of commodity similar decision.The current "trademark law" the twenty-eighth stipulation: "application for registration of a trademark,...... Or with others in the same or similar goods has already been registered or is identical with or similar to the trademark, the Trademark Office shall refuse the application, shall not publish." Article fifty-second (a) regulations, "without the owner of a registered trademark licensing, identical or similar to the registered trademark of the trademark on the same kind of goods or similar goods with the use of", belongs to the trademark infringement. The two law can be regarded as authorized right to review and dispute of trademark infringement on trademark is similar, whether the goods are determined on the basis of similar trademark, but on the two terms of understanding will not be confined to the literal meaning, it is actually "ban reflects confusion" principles in trademark law. The basic function of a trademark is the difference between the source of the goods, so the protection of trademark rights must be to avoid consumer confusion, leading to different sources of trademark function can not be achieved as the premise. The registered trademark right range is greater than the right of use: exclusive right to use a registered trademark, the approved and registered by the Trademark Office and approved the use of goods is limited; but the registered trademark right range can be extended to the similar goods and similar, so long as such use may cause the relevant publicTheConfusion. Therefore, similar to the mark and commodity similar judgment is the purpose of the protection of trademark distinguishing function, to avoid consumer confusion, two were judged not to understand the literal meaning is only related to the trademark on the objective attributes or goods, or to easy to cause the relevant public confusion as the basic standard, two to determine the.

On the "similar", "similar" and "confusion" relationship may also refer to Taiwan region of China's "trademark law" likelihood of confusion standard of review second by two, "judge mark with or without confusion errors in danger, should be related reference, related factors through comprehensive reference to domestic and international cases mentioned, sorted out the following eight factors: 1 trademark recognition of strength; 2 mark is approximation and the approximation degree; 3 goods / services are similar and the similar degree; 4 first rights situation diversification; 5 of the actual circumstances of confusion; 6 familiar with the related degree of consumers for the trademark of the applicant; 7 the mark is good; 8 other factors when confusion".(see chart note 1)

The Trademark Review and adjudication procedures on whether the goods are similar to judge, should first consider the function, use, production department, sales channels, consumer goods, many factors, content, mode of service purposes, objects, these factors are the essential factors to determine whether similar goods or services, the table should be distinguished as an important reference. But, at the same time, according to the circumstances of the case, to avoid public confusion as the principle, subjective intention and other auxiliary factors comprehensively the cited trademark well-known trademarks or originality, two degree of approximation, the review of the applicant for trademark. On one hand, according to different commodities are not the same as group, but the cited trademark well-known trademarks or strong originality, two approximate height, review the trademark applicant supervisor malicious obviously, and commodity association is strong, should be to avoid confusion, while others stop malicious trademark reputation as a starting point, through different table similar goods, constitute. But on the other hand, the commodity similar judgment can not be one-sided emphasis on the auxiliary factors, and detached from the attributes of the commodity itself, ignoring the comprehensive analysis of the essential factors and objective considerations.Otherwise it willBeyond the twenty-eighth "Prohibition of confusion" of the legislative intent, will destroy the balance of legislation between twenty-eighth and thirteenth. For example I think, the court of first instance in the No. 5707386thTrademark dispute between table that breakthrough, hair care formulations and toothpaste for similar goods in 3937907th Trademark objection review case breakthrough distinction table, that "paper and fabric disposable baby diapers, paper and fabric baby diaper pants, bibs of paper" and "disinfectant wipes" for similar goods; 4001262nd No.Trademark objection review case breakthrough distinction table, determine the copy paper and books for similar goods in 3888889thTrademark objection review breakthrough distinction table, the belt and harness as similar goods in 4077774thTrademark objection review breakthrough distinction table, nail clippers, shavers and cosmetics convicted of similar goods, is actually the cited trademark providesAndWell known trademarkThe same level of protectionCross protection, beyond the scope of trademark law article twenty-eighth.

Therefore, the commodity similar judgment should be considered necessary factors and secondary factors, based on the full consideration of the commodity attribute relevance both auxiliary factors. At the same time, breakthroughs in the classification case, considerations should determine the commodity similar comprehensively. Although the trademark similar judgment of case principle, but for a breakthrough to distinguish table is lack of comprehensive analysis to make judgment standard is simple, may cause confusion in understanding practice.

(two) the administrative proceedings in the new evidence submitted the adoption problem

The so-called "new evidence", is that the parties did not submit in the review process, and presented in the proceedings of evidence. New evidence is divided into two kinds, one kind is newly formed or justifiable in the review process did not submit evidence, one is no justification for not submitted in auditing evidence. At present, the Commission for the new evidence against the vast majority of the case because the court accepted the party fails to submit the assessment procedures without any justifiable reason, evidence, new evidence below refers to only refers to such a situation.

At present, the court has the following three approaches to new evidence shall be adopted: one is inadmissible, as in No. 6987966th "Rose of Fort ROSETOWN "trademark review dismissed the administrative lawsuit, the court held that:" administrative litigation should be according to the defendant in the administrative action evidence, namely the administrative relative person to submit in the review stage of the evidence. Sixty the provisions of three items of administrative litigation evidence rules, the plaintiff or the third party provide in the procedure, the defendant in administrative procedure is not a specific administrative act on the basis of evidence, not for that specific administrative acts being sued legitimate basis. In this case because of the evidence material not submitted in the review process, and Chen Guifeng did not make a reasonable explanation, and some materials have been beyond the court appointed time limit for adducing evidence, it shall not be accepted." In 3725740th, "VS SHAXUAN and map" trademark objection review of administrative lawsuit, I think is documented evidence is not sufficient to prove "VS" or "VIDALSASSON "was recently cited trademark in trademark registration has become well-known related commodity trademarks, ruling the objected trademark is approved and registered. Procter & Gamble in the first trial procedure presented some evidence to demonstrate that the citation of well-known trademark case. The court held that "," according to the provisions of the administrative procedure law of the people's Republic of China "in article fifth, the people's courts shall, on whether the specific administrative act is legal review. In this case, P & G new submitted in evidence, not submitted to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in the Trademark Review and adjudication procedures, not the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make 16488th the basis of the order, in the case of the ruling legality examination of the lack of relevance, the court shall not adopt". In the No. 3795193rd, No. 3795092nd "Reebok RUIBU and map" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, No. 3657173rd "OMNIA" trademark revocation of administrative review proceedings, No. 6696745th "the sudo Nastex" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, No. 1067642nd "INTEL and map" trademark dispute in administrative litigation, No. 4953633rd "AXYS" the Trademark Review dismissed the administrative litigation, No. 7253010th "Chunghwa Telecom" trademark review dismissed the administrative litigation, No. 4193035th, No. 4304627th "Kellogg" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, No. 6565747th graphics trademark barge reply the administrative litigation, No. 7427071st "EliteResidences "trademark review dismissed the administrative litigation, No. 4032670th" Arman ARMAN "trademark objection review of administrative litigation cases, courts have rejected the plaintiff evidence in litigation procedure.

Two is directly to be admissible. In such cases, the court the reasons and specific practices are also different. One is that the "Regulations" of the Supreme People's Court on several issues of administrative procedure evidence rule sixth, can adopt new evidence in administrative proceedings. Another is that should not be admissible, but from the substantive justice and administrative efficiency principle, to be admissible, the decision to withdraw the judges ruling, the majority. In 2012, a number of new admissibility of evidence in the case, the court by the plaintiff to bear the cost of litigation. For example, No. 4040376th "drag" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, No. 3828316th "source" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, No. 5653575th "God 5653577th" duck, duck "God" trademark dispute in administrative litigation, No. 4619581st "IVORY IVORY" trademark dispute administrative litigation, No. 5604447th "pet world Chongwushijie" trademark dispute administrative lawsuit etc..

Three is not direct adoption of new evidence, ordered judges to review the evidence. For example, in 1748888th, "Cabernet" trademark dispute in administrative litigation, the court held that "although the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made 5115th, ruling procedure is not wrong, but because COFCO wine company, Dynasty, Changyu company Great Wall Co and are in the proceedings to submit a large number of possible effects of the trademark review and Adjudication Board entity verdict evidence if not, consider, is not conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of both parties, especially it could harm the social and public interests. Accordingly, 5115th rulings shall be revoked, the Trademark Appraisal Committee shall be based on the new evidence submitted by the parties to decide on." The trial court upheld the verdict. In theNo. 4065658th "icon and map" trademark objection review of administrative lawsuit, the judges to objection review by the applicant (the original objection) the company mail service objection review the application and the evidential materials by the post office returned after the announcement, the company did not reply. Our Commission finds that well-known insufficient evidence, approved by the objection trademark registration. The court held that "the company submitted new evidence in the procedure, because not review, so in the litigation should not be adopted. But these new evidence and the case of disputes angle directly relevant to the issues, such as not to consider, not only have large impact on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, but also against objective reality may. In this case, if the simple maintenance of the ruling, not only helps to identify the objective truth, is not conducive to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. If the direct adoption of new evidence, will lead to the loss of administrative review procedures, will also harm the parties procedural rights and substantive rights. In view of this, from the legitimate rights and interests, protection of the parties to ensure the objective reality and legal reality consistent point of view, as the legal effects of judicial and social effect unified, the defendant in the original evidence and the parties based on new evidence submitted, to make a ruling on the case."The trial court upheld the verdict. In 4065660th, "icon and map" trademark objection review of administrative lawsuit, the same as the previous case,The company did not reply in the review process, I appointed a well-known lack of evidence. A trial that judges the legal procedure, the ruling shall be maintained. Trial court that "the company fails to submit the evidence in the objection review stage, so if the court directly on the evidence for that, will cause the administrative review procedures loss, damage to the parties procedural rights and substantive rights. If you do not consider the new evidence submitted, but by other procedures for relief, against the will and administrative efficiency, protect the legitimate rights and interests of the relative people of spirit. The decision to withdraw the first instance judgment, revocation of judges ruled by the company to assume, first, second lawsuit fee."

Adoption of new evidence in administrative litigation, I always think should adhere to the basic principles of rules of evidence for administrative litigation. The Trademark Review and Adjudication of judicial review is the parties against the TRAb decision, with the judges as a defendant in the lawsuit, and from its own nature, belongs to administrative litigation. "Administrative procedure law" fifth article: "the people's courts shall, to examine the legality of specific administrative acts." The Supreme People's court "on the implementation of people's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law" interpretation of several issues "of the provisions of article fifty-sixth, the specific administrative action is lawful but the rationality of the existence of the problem, the people's court shall reject the claims of the plaintiff. The Supreme People's court "Regulations" on several problems of administrative procedure evidence rule fifty-ninth:"The defendant in administrative procedures in accordance with the statutory procedures require the plaintiff to provide evidence, the plaintiff shall provide and refused to provide in accordance with the law, provide evidence in proceedings in the people's court shall not be accepted, the general." Thus, the administrative litigation should be to review the legality of administrative organs of the specific administrative act as the basic principles, and to submit evidence is not specific administrative acts being sued basis, the court should not be adopted.

The Supreme People's court "Regulations" on several problems of administrative procedure evidence rule Sixth:"The plaintiff may provide evidence of illegal specific administrative acts being sued evidence. The plaintiff to provide evidence is not established, does not relieve the burden of proof of the legality of the specific administrative act." Accordingly, in some case, the court held that the plaintiff in administrative proceedings as evidence, the court shall be adopted. I think the committee, to review the terms or legitimacy in the administrative organs of the specific administrative act as the provisions are based on the premise, should not be used as the court may in the administrative proceedings evidence adoption of new evidence.

One view, the Trademark Review and adjudication cycle longer, and allows the parties to fill the card period of only three months, this caused the party not in three months after the expiration of the period of supplying evidence submitted supplementary evidence, or while waiting for the review, has changed with the mark of use cases. I appoint think, first, if the fill permit expires and produced new evidence, which belongs to the parties to submit reasonable grounds for new evidence, the judges in practice allows the parties to submit, through the exchange of evidence shall be admissible in. Secondly, though currently implementing regulations parties fill permit for a period of three months, but considering the present situation of China's trademark agency industry level uneven, the lack of knowledge of trademark law, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties from the point of view, if the new evidence may affect the substantive results, I board in after the exchange of evidence to be admissible. In some cases, the court also held that the judges accepted this new evidence belongs to the "justifiable", do not belong to the illegal procedure. Therefore, the Trademark Review and adjudication trial period length is not restricted to the right parties fully exercised in the administrative procedure, can not become parties to submit reasonable grounds for new evidence in the proceedings.

The new evidence may influence the justice of the case, and the parties have no other cases the relief way, taking into account the special nature of the Trademark Review and adjudication proceedings than common administrative litigation cases, safeguard the lawful rights and interests of the parties, the impartiality of the legal effect of the application of it, to give the corresponding relief opportunities. However, to obtain substantive justice should not be at the expense of the cost of procedure justice. The pursuit of the justice of the legal entity is established and applied the fundamental purpose of procedural justice, but also is one of the basic value of human legal system, it is regarded as the "visible justice". Typically, the substantive justice is concerned with the case result justice and procedure, is a kind of beyond the case rule, through the normative process of law application security, overcome the applicable law may occur in the subjectivity and arbitrariness.Procedural justice is the precondition of the realization of substantive justice, non-compliance or lack of procedure justice, is not absolutely impossible to achieve substantive justice occasionally. But that justice is the deformity of the justice, does not conform to the modern civilizationLegal systemThe requirements of society, it is impossible to realize the social justice fundamentally.Judicial review of administrative decision is a trademark, the supervision of the administrative procedures, is our country on the basis of TRIPs protocol, the exhaustion of administrative means giving it access to judicial relief. Judicial review of administrative acts, protect the rights and interests of the parties play an important role, but the procedure of judicial review of administrative procedure can not exceed or replacement. If the court in administrative proceedings to the pursuit of substantive justice for the purpose of direct adoption of new evidence, this will cause the other party trial level loss, damage the legitimate rights and interests. Also, a lot of trademark administrative litigation cases directly accepted the new evidence, from the guide will make the parties of administrative procedure evidence essence ignored, lack of administrative procedure. In practice there have also been agent in order to obtain compared to the Trademark Review and adjudication agency fees higher agency costs of administrative litigation, in the administrative procedure fails to prove, the key evidence for administrative proceedings to submit to successful case.

Therefore, I think the committee, the new evidence submitted by the parties may affect the results of the substantiveWithout subsequent relief programIn the case, the court should make full reasoning in decision, decided to be admissible, also should not be adopted directly in the procedure of administrative litigation, but should respect the property cases, fully protect the rights of another party, ruling from TRAb heavy sanctions, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the cost of litigation. In some cases related to the same parties, if the agent in a case in the proceedings submitted to the substantive results of new evidence, but in cases related to subsequent pending, not to the judges added submit this evidence submitted in the proceedings, the court should judge for the Supreme People's court "" the provisions on several issues of administrative procedure evidence fifty-ninth provisions in "the defendant in administrative procedures in accordance with the statutory procedures require the plaintiff to provide evidence, the plaintiff shall provide and refused to provide" in accordance with the law, not adoption of new evidence.

(three) proof review material served

The service is refers to the court, the administrative organ, arbitration according to legal procedures and methods, the legal documents to the parties, agents or other participants of a legal activity. According to the "Regulations" the implementation of the trademark law, trademark administrative cases served mainly in direct mail, mail and bulletin service. The service system is set up to protect the party's rights, so that it can receive the relevant legal instruments and interest, to exercise of the right of reply or other relief rights. Therefore, the administrative organ undertakes the obligation to ensure that documents can be served to the parties asComplete.

The Trademark Review and adjudication case has the particularity, the first, review the case hearing in writing as the principle, examiners cannot pass through the trial is aware of the relevant legal instruments is the actualBy the parties. From the administrative efficiency and practical point of view, I don't like the Judiciary Committee as the case to send the receipt to get legal documents. Secondly, a longer cycle to hear cases of trademark review, issued a notice from my committee to accept judicial review, usually beyond the "postal law" provisions of the query period a year. Therefore, the notice of defense did not return and party did not reply the case, if the parties in the proceedings had not received a reply materials, our commission is not proof material is actually delivered to the party. Therefore, in the administrative litigation, once in the notice of defense did not return and party did not reply in the case that the parties had not received a reply, materials, I appoint will face the risk of losing because of illegal procedure.

From the current actual situation, to solve the mail problem fundamentally, must be timely to understand and grasp the actual service condition in documents mailed after. This is a perfect evaluation mechanism and procedures, to really can not be served on the party's situation, timely find and remedy; two is to actually has been served to the parties, to obtain evidence, in order to avoid the passive situation of subsequent procedure possible. At present, the State Administration of taxation is for the development of Trademark Review and Adjudication of three phase system, should take the opportunity to optimize the evaluation automation system, on the issue of the notice of defense, the message was not returned within the prescribed time limit, the parties also not defense cases, regular print list, according to "postal law", in the mailed within a year, this list and mailing certificate, actual service condition for post query messages. For indeed is not delivered to the parties, should be timely to the parties submit relevant documents or in special circumstances announcement service; to have served the query results, should be retained, for the burden of proof.

Because of the development and the new systemThe corresponding proceduresStill need some time to perfect, inThis before, I appointed auditor shall actively fulfill their duty of proof in litigation procedure, the parties have not submitted to the actual receipt of relevant documents and evidence, shall be submitted to theSendSend the post office stamp documents.

(four) thirteenth second well-known trademarks of trans category protection scope

According to the second paragraph of trademark law thirteenth, has been in the China registered famous trademark, can obtain the cross category protection, the premise is the Department for the registration of a trademark or use may "to mislead the public, damage the interests of the owner of famous trademark".2009 implementation of the "Supreme People's court interpretation concerning the protection of well-known trademark law of civil disputes application issues" (hereinafter referred to as "well known trademark judicial interpretation") ninth provisions of the second paragraph, "enough to make the public think that the trademark and the well-known trademark has a considerable degree of contact, and decreased significantly, undermining the well-known well known trademark trademark market reputation, or improper use of well-known trademark market reputation, misleading belongs to the section second provisions of the trademark law thirteenth 'public, resulting in the well-known trademark registrant possible damage to the interests of the'".

From the 2012 court decision, standard of protection for well-known trademark has improved significantly, some well-known trademark protection beyond category merchandise categories span. For example, identified "Yili" as well-known in milk and milk products on the trademark, cross category protection to shampoo, computers and other goods; that "ZIPPO" for the well-known trademark on the commodities in the lighter, cross category protection to the auto repair shop with complete sets of hand tools and other products, advertising services and other services; that "Baidu" as the Internet search engine services of well-known trademark, cross category protection to condoms and other commodities; that "Casio" for the well-known electronic watches, calculators and other commodity trademarks, cross category protection to tap, furniture metal accessories and other goods; that "Giordano" for the well-known clothing brand, cross category protection to sanitary napkins and other commodities; identified "Septwolves and map" trademark for the well-known clothing brand, cross category protection to the water tap, radiators and other commodities; that "BMW" is the well-known automobile brand, cross category protection to clothing and other goods; that "Head and Shoulders" for the well-known trademark on the shampoo, cross protection to a hair dryer commodity; that "Lotte", "LOTTE" for candy, gum commodity trademarks, cross category protection to the lamp, refrigerator, electric irons, electric power material, Commodity fruit Juicer; that "Honda" for the well-known automobile brand, cross class protected by the plastic film products to non packaging; that "Reebok Reebok" trademark for the well-known shoes and other goods trademarks, cross category protection to books, stationery and other goods. In these cases, I appoint also makes cross protection wins the case, also my cross category Protection Committee has not lost the case.

At the same time, in some cases, the court recognized in the cited trademark with well-known, determine the related products and mark the designated commodities vary greatly, do not mislead the public, damage the interests of the owner of the cited trademark; or that thirteenth of the two paragraph of the four elements of application should also have to recognize the mark. The registration in violation of the provisions of the Trademark Law Article thirteenth paragraph two, in case of larger products span, even can prove that the cited mark with high visibility, also cannot apply the thirteenth section two, in this case there is no need to cite the trademark is well-known trademark evaluation. As No. 3735340th "in EuropeAmberLes OUPOLAI and map "trademark objection review of administrative litigation, the court of first instance that can be identified" OuAmberLai "trademark in cosmetic products with high visibility, but the objected trademark is specified using the" granite, marble "goods and cosmetics not only functions, applications and other aspects are obviously different, and the consumer oriented groups are totally different, not enough to think is disagree with the cited trademark logo, easyMake the public think that the trademark and the well-known trademark has a considerable degree of connection,From theWeakened significantly, undermining the well-known trademark well-known trademarks market reputation, or improper use of the well-known trademark reputation. In theNo. 3157693rd "Pantene PANTING" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, trial court that "can be found Pantene" trademark in the shampoo, conditioner and hair care formulations of commodities with high visibility, but "shampoo, conditioner and hair preparations" commodity and the objected trademark is approved the use of "medical nutrition, air fresheners, mosquito repellent incense, medical cotton" and other commodities in functional use, production, consumption and so far, the public does not generally between the two kinds of commodities to establish production relation, therefore, note book used without objection trademark misleading the public and undermine the Procter & Gamble Company interest consequences. In 4023247th, "Gao Lu Jie and map" trademark objection review of administrative lawsuit, the court held that "provides for the well-known trademark protection beyond category is our country in order to meet the requirement of the international treaty for the widely known trademarks protection compared with ordinary trademark stronger, but the people's court to cross category protection at to determine whether can, should consider the specified correlation using a commodity, whether it will lead to the relevant public confusion, mistake, will damage the interests of trademark registration and other factors. In this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to prove that the cited mark in the toothpaste products with high visibility, and the objected trademark is specified for use in paint and other commodities, the two in the function, use, production department, sales channels, consumer groups are significantly different, the objected trademark is not related to public the source of goods or the relationship between third people and the confusion, mistake. In this case, the people's court is not necessary for the cited trademark is a well-known trademark evaluation". In 3795193rd, "Reebok RUIBU and map" trademark objection review of administrative litigation, the court of first instance has also taken a similar to the "high road cleaning and map" case of view, think that the cited trademark authorized the use ofCommodityClothing, the objected trademark is specified as twelfth types of land vehicle engine, driving motors for land vehicles and other commodity, two distinct industry feature, the huge difference, the objected trademark is registered to use, not enough to cause the relevant public mistakenly believe that there is a considerable degree of contact with the trademark with the cited trademark, to the detriment of Lippo company interest.

Well known trademarkCross categoryProtectionThe scope ofThe problem, not only in relation to the delineation of the interests of related rights, but also embodies the protection of IPR in China under the existing legal framework level.The well-known trademark after long-term use, extensive publicity, has its use in the public mind the goods or services to establish a strong link between the trademark and commodity, significant relationship between is trademark sense, more well-known trademark, contact the relevant goods or services is stronger, the significant of the trademark is stronger. If we allow others in other categories of goods or services, and registered on the same or similar trademarks, will dilute, dilute the well-known trademarks in the public mind with the goods or services related to establish contact, which destroyed was the well-known trademark.USA Lawyers Association, intellectual property, President Smith said, "if the court allowed or laissez faire 'Rolls-Royce' restaurant, 'Rolls-Royce' trousers', Rolls-Royce 'candy exists, in less than 10 years,' all the people Rolls-Royce 'trademark will no longer have the trademark of the world famous." (Note 2)Therefore, for the consideration of well-known trademark need cross category protection, should not be similar to avoid confusion for the purpose of commodity similar to determine, objective attribute relevance judgment based goods, but should protect well-known trademarks significant point of view, prohibitedDecreased significantly, undermining the well-known trademark well-known trademarks market reputation, or improper use of the well-known trademark reputationTrademark registration or use. For use in the daily consumer goods or services, the public is the well-known popular trademark, the scope of its protection should be relatively wide, if only from the commodityObjective to determine the attributes of service / has no relevance judgment, even the well-known it will not damage the interests of the owner of a well-known trademark, is a logical inversion. On the application of article thirteenth paragraph two, should first determine whether the cited mark constitutes a well-known trademark, this is the basis for determining the suitable conditions of the existence of other.

(five) prior to some problems in the protection of the right of name

Without permission, the person's name registration of trademarks, to others the right to name the cause or may cause damage, the mark shall be the registration shall not be approved or revoke.

According to the trademark trial standard, the prior conditions of protect the right of name of two: 1, the mark and others the same name; 2, the Department for the registration of a trademark to others the right to name the cause or may cause damage. At present, the main practice is confused first name right protection have to mark their names are exactly the same as the premise? How to judge the Department for the registration of a trademark may cause damage to the right of personal name, first name the name of the person with high visibility is judged necessary conditions may damage?

1Get the name right protectionShould beTo mark with the same name as the premise

In practice, the protection of our commission for the right of name to the mark with the same name as the premise of others. The name sounds exactly the same with others, but the writing is not exactly the same mark, if others name with high visibility, generally applicable to the first paragraph of article tenth (eight), no registration or cancellation of registration; if the mark is only foreign common surname or given name, right of name to protect others name is not with the same request, generally does not determine the form of others the right to name the damage.

In the "IVERSON and figure", "IVERSONBASKETBALL "series trademark objection review case, I think IVERSON is common foreign surnames, cannot prove the objected trademark is registered will damage the NBA basketball star AllenIverson's right to name. The first instance court ruling revoked my commission. The court of first instance by documented evidence to judge the NBA basketball star AllenWith the relevant public Iverson in Chinese in high visibility and is often referred to as the Iverson. At the same time that the "relevant evidence submitted by the plaintiff, comprehensive, the Institute for third people registered trademark has been objection improper purpose held positive attitude. The reason is that, other trademark registered by the third person can see, its not only registered more than 30 pieces of Iverson related trademarks, trademark not only contains some text, also includes a player playing basketball graphics, therefore, third people on the relationship between Iverson and basketball should be cognitive. At the same time, with third of the actual production of basketball shoes products, and the enterprise site hype NBA basketball star, to a considerable extent, pointing to AllenIverson and other circumstances can also support this point. Therefore, the rational thought, although Iverson is a foreign surname, but third people should know AllenIverson NBA basketball star, its registered trademark has been objection to improper use of NBA basketball star AllenIverson reputation of the objective, structure on AllenIverson name right damage".

The verdict has certain rationality, protection not to name others high visibility of the rigid requirements to the mark with exactly the same as the premise. With high natural visibility for specific public in a field, and if the mark in the first or last name for a specific public of the natural person call, the first or last name already in the population and the specific natural result in the corresponding relationship, and the Department for business standard specifies the use of goods and the natural person having a higher visibility of the closely related, the Department for the trademark registrant while others reputation to seek the improper benefit intentions obvious, it can determine the trademark hurt others prior right of name.

2 Request to get first name right protection name isShould beMust have high visibility

About getting name right protection should the name has a high reputation as a necessary condition, has not yet formed a unified view. From the court's decision, in the Britney series of trademark disputes, objection review case, "Paul McDartney PAULMCCARTNEY "trademark objection ruled in the case, the court of first instance shall think, judging whether the mark will harm others name right, should be based on the right to name people first has a reputation as the premise.

However, in the "Kate Moss KATEMOSS "trademark dispute case, the applicant to submit business, stone company to prove the model" KATEMOSS "evidence awareness is only Webpage print Alibaba website, is entitled" supermodel KATE uploadMOSS new ports spokesman "article. Trial court that, "although business, stone company only submitted evidence before the filing date of the disputed trademark KATEVisibility of MOSS in Chinese, this alone is not sufficient to prove that the evidence was high in the China visibility, but in view of KATEMOSS is not the existing fixed collocation words, but Jing Shengqiang did not use the word trademark dispute to make logical explanation; in view of the disputed trademark applicant Jing Shengqiang as the garment industry operators compared to the general public has higher cognition for the industry, and the model KATEMOSS worked for the spring and summer of 2002 'clothing brand spokesperson, thus can judge Jing Shengqiang in the twenty-fifth categories of clothing products registered trademark dispute with the improper use of' KATEMOSS' the name "the purpose of profit, registration and use of the disputed trademark infringement model KATEMOSS name right, maintain the judges ruled that the decision. In the "ZANGTOI and map "trademark objection review in the case, the court of first instance is explicitly described in the name of othersThat the necessary condition in our country, the public does not infringe the right of name known behavior was established: "China's legal protection for the right of name, mainly using another name whether the actor has to name others improper use of considered as a standard, if the actor has the objective, which can be identified by their behavior scope of violations of civil right of name, and the name of others was used in public in China have a certain visibility is only one of the factors to determine whether the infringement of the right of name behavior, necessary conditions of the factors is not violated the right of name behavior was established".

The protection of the right of name, to the Department for the registration of a trademark shall beTo others the right to name the cause or may cause damage to the premise, the most common form of others the right of name of damage is the well-known public figure's name to apply for trademark registration. The logic of reasoning is generally, if the name of a natural person in the mark designated high visibility public use of goods may be presumed, department for the registration of a trademark will harm others the right to name. ButThisLogicWhether canBackward, that constitute a harm to others the right of name, the inevitableRequirementThe name in the relevant public with high visibility, worthy of study.According to "trademark review and trial standards", "the unauthorized use of a public figure's name to apply for the registration of a trademark, or knowingly to others, but the damage to the interests of others to apply for registration of a trademark shall be determined based on, for infringement of the right of personal name". In the"ZANGTOI and map "trademark objection review caseThe plaintiff, Xian Shuying has received awards and participated in a number of influential fashion conference in foreign countries, and before the application date objection trademark, the applicant and the Xian Shuying, Ying Ma companies have "ZANGTOI "brand to enter the market of China business contact elements. The case is heard in the standard"Knowing the names of others, is based on the damage to the interests of others to apply for the registration of trademark"The case, shall be determined by the objection registration of Xian Shuying English name right damage.

(six) prior to several problems in the protection of trade name right

1 the right of trade name can get cross category protection

Will and others previously registered, use and has a certain well-known trade name identical or similar text apply for registration of a trademark, easily lead to confusion China public, resulting in earlier trade name right possible damage to the interests of the people, should be identified as infringing on others earlier trade name right, the mark shall be the registration shall not be approved or be undo. Under normal circumstances, prior firm visibility is limited to public the business scope, therefore, the scope of protection of the trade name right provides the principle of limited to provide goods / services with the same or similar goods / services.

From the 2012 judicial decision, the new trend of the protection of trademark right is severely combat malicious cybersquatting, protection of trade name right no longer adhere to provide goods or services with the same or similar goods / services. For example, in 4133399th, "SECCO medical" trademark objection review case, new evidence of second instance court SECCO pharmaceutical company submitted in the procedure of second instance in, think in trademark registration of "SECCO" business has a certain degree of visibility and influence in the field of medicine, although the second pharmaceutical company to production, sales of drugs, while the objected trademark is registered in the medical device products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices belong to different categories of goods, but the drug and medical device related degree is high, the two distribution channels, consumer objects have high degree of coincidence, "SECCO" names in the pharmaceutical industry visibility can cover the field of medical apparatus and instruments, is registered and used objection trademark easy cause consumer confusion on the sources of goods, causing damage to the "SECCO" trade name, trademark registration is filed shall not, the decision to withdraw the first instance judgment and my committee ruled. In 4213226th, "Xilin little sheep happy city" trademark dispute case, the court of first instance of the Inner Mongolia Little Sheep Catering Chain Ltd prior in the catering services have higher visibility of the "little sheep" trade name protection beyond category to the hotel management, hotel business management services; in the 3684493rd, "Seiko" trademark objection review case, a trial the court will Seiko Holdings Corporation prior in a clock, timer goods have a higher visibility of the "Seiko" trade name protection beyond category to platinum (metal), Ruby (Zhu Bao) goods; in the 3698897th, "Tong Hanchun" trademark objection review in the case, the court of first instance will Shanghai tonghanchuntang Medicine Co. Ltd. prior in the Chinese goods have a higher visibility of the "Tong Hanchun" name cross category protection to non medical nutrition liquid, non medical nutrition cream goods; in the 1977158th, "Jerome and map" trademark dispute case, the court of first instance will Zhangzhou Jielong Electrical Co., Ltd. earlier in the electric rolling shutter door, window products have a well-known "and" trade name protection beyond category to drive (machine), electrically operated curtain drawing device goods; 33385th No. 46 "TDK and map" trademark objection review in the case, the court of second instance shall, prior to the TDK in the electronic components and other products have a higher visibility of the "TDK" trade name protection beyond category to the lighting device, water heater, refrigerator, water and other goods.

Protection to the prior right of trade name, should be to avoid the related public confusion, damage earlier trade name right interests as the starting point. Especially considering the diversified development of modern enterprise's social reality, consumers have become accustomed to the enterprise cross domain, cross industry business, if the first firm high visibility, the mark and prior firm approximate height and the applicant malice obviously, the protection to the prior right of trade name should not be too rigidly adhere to the production and operation of the the goods or services, can be appropriate to expand the scope of association is strong, easy to cause the relevant public confusion and damage the interests of the trade name right of goods or services.

But at the same time, attention should be paid to the so-called first "trade name right" is not legal rights. According to "Anti Unfair Competition Law" article fifth (three) and "the Supreme People's Court on several issues of application of laws in Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition" sixth the interpretation of the provisions of paragraph 1, known to have certain market degree, are known by the relevant public enterprises in the name of the font size can be protected. Therefore, the so-called "trade name right" is in essence a kind of anti unfair competition level of legal rights, the legal rights of trademark right against the protection, should not be too wide range. In the name of high-profile, malicious obvious, to the right of trade name can cross category protection, but should refer to the determination of the basic principles of similar goods, limited to the relevance of the commodities or services, the scope of protection of trade name right should not be the scope of protection over the unregistered well-known trademark, not to achieve more protection should not beyond the registered trademark.

2 the name of the enterprise can obtain the right of trade name protection "

For the enterprise name has a distinctive name, the protection of the name of the enterprise is generally reflected in protecting the prior name. But for the distinctive name does not contain some enterprises in the name of the enterprise, usually related to public calls or identification of the enterprise to the enterprise name abbreviation. If the documented evidence can prove that the name of the enterprise or through the use of propaganda and long, wide, has been well known by the relevant public and identity in related fields, have high market visibility, commercial mark significance have recognition of management main body, protect its can be referred to in article thirty-first of the earlier trade name right.

In 4040376th, "the days drag" trademark objection review case, court and the court of second instance trial were adopted new evidence Tianjin Tractor Manufacturing Co Ltd submitted in the procedure, judgment "as the days drag" Tianjin tractorCompanySpecific short time much earlier than the date of application and the trademark in question was, "the days drag" after the publicity and the use of long-term, widespread, has been widely known by the relevant public and identity, high in the national scope of tractor manufacturing field market visibility, commercial mark significance have recognition of management main body, condensation the Tianjin tractor company reputation, can be regarded as Tianjin tractor company name, its rights and interests and enterprise name right by the "trademark law" in article thirty-first. The objected trademark isRefers toFor use of tractors and other goods, easy to make the public think that the trademark and Tianjin tractor company has certain relation to climb, Tianjin Tractor Company in the "drag" on the accumulation of goodwill, causing damage to the company, shall not be registered, the decision to withdraw our commission ruling.

In 4612533rd, "light house Pukang zhQJPK and map" trademark objection review case, new evidence for a trial court Chinese light industrial products import and Export Corporation submitted in the procedure, determine the plaintiffs in the lawsuit submit evidence to prove its operating in light industrial products, daily commodities, hardware appliances sales and so on for many years, before the trademark registration, "light" as the company's name has been in use for many years, has a well-known in the relevant public. BecauseThe objected trademark is specified using a water heater, electric cooker, cooker, electric water heaters and other commodities also belongs to the household electrical appliances, and the same business area,Therefore, the objected trademark is registered to the origin of the goods in the plaintiff or plaintiff has certain contact the relevant public, to the detriment of the prior right of trade name, should not be registered, the decision to withdraw our commission ruling.

(seven) for the second half of thirty-first

In previous years I appointed for thirty-one second half court cases, the vast majority of the judges constitute a malicious cybersquatting case, and the court held that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the prior use of trademark has a certain influence. Therefore, the judges give proper to improve on the "influence" the criteria. However, from the lawsuit in 2012, I appointed for the main reason thirty-one second half had become my committee that the documented evidence is not sufficient to prove the prior use of trademark has a certain effect, but the court held that the malicious obvious, can be appropriate to reduce the requirements to "influence" the burden of proof, constitute a malicious cybersquatting. This shows that the court applied the standard on the thirty-first half of the change, pay more attention to the use of the terms of preventing malicious obvious cyber squatting, instead of "influence" set higher requirements of proof.

For example, in the 4458183rd "GATEHOUSE" trademark disputes, the court of first instance approved the use of a trademark licensing process, although the goods sold abroad, but does not affect the trademark in the production enterprise is located and the surrounding area has a well-known. The court thinks, thirty-first second half "the basic purpose is to prohibit others set up improper purpose will be prior use of another's trademark preemptive registration as a trademark, based on it, the application of the provisions of, though usually require prior trademark has a well-known, but the important role of the visibility requirements is identified by the well-known. The presumption of the owner of a registered trademark of malicious, the visibility is not high standard request. Under normal circumstances, if the owner of a registered trademark prior use of trademarks in the knowledge of the situation is still in the same or similar goods or services for trademark registration, trademark registration may be subjective malicious, in violation of the provisions of the trademark law article thirty-first".

In the 3747592nd "NUXE" trademark objection review of administrative lawsuit, the plaintiff Nakesi company submitted in auditing evidence for its "NUXEPARIS and tree "brand in Europe and the United States and Hongkong, Taiwan area promote the use of evidence, in addition to before the trademark China users landing on its websiteWww.nuxe.comWebpage historical records, the domestic cosmetics Forum on "NUXE" product information. I appoint think documented evidence is not sufficient to prove before the trademark registration, Nakesi company "NUXEPARIS and tree "trademark has a certain influence in the Chinese, shall be approved and registered by the trademark objection. The court held that, on the evidence of Nakesi company "NUXEPARIS and tree "trademark," before the trademark registration date has been in Europe and the United States and Hongkong area have a higher visibility, and through the Nakesi company propaganda and the use of the trademark, the 'NUXEPARIS and tree 'trademark has a high commercial value, has a certain influence. In view of cosmetic products belonging to daily articles with high degree of concern, the relevant public awareness of the types of goods is different from other commodities, China's consumers in large quantities from abroad to buy and bring home use cases do exist and objectively. The above factors to determine, in this case, can be identified before the trademark registration, Nakesi company 'NUXEPARIS and tree 'trademark in cosmetics and other goods in mainland China have been known by the relevant public, and has formed a certain degree of visibility". Comprehensive consideration is the objection trademark applicants are cosmetics industry, once a company in Hongkong as a director, in the actual use of the NUXE deformation is Nu · Xe and use of tree image combination, determine the registration acts constitute the thirty-one part refers to the situation, the objected trademark is not approved for registration, cancellation of our Commission ruling. In addition, in the No. 3458324th "kabili di CAPPELLETTI and map" trademark objection review of administrative litigation case verdict, No. 4658980th "Elitron" trademark objection review of administrative litigation case verdict, No. 4759513rd "rain RainForest "trademark disputes administrative proceedings in two trial, the court is considering the mark registrant malice obviously and reduce the requirement of" influence "the burden of proof.

I think, the second half of thirty-first is an important clause in the trademark law to stop trademark malicious cybersquatting, inThe current "trademark law" is not about the principle of honesty and credit provisions or general terms and conditions,How is itThe balance between "malicious" and "influence" is difficult in the application of the provisions of this clause, is the key to effective use of stop malicious cybersquatting. View my commission to support the court in these cases, in the existing legal framework,In the trademark malicious cybersquatting has become a serious problem in front of the much maligned reality,To effectively combat malicious cybersquatting, the "impact" should not be set too high or too formatting requirements of proof. In the prior use of trademarks well-known trademarks, two highly similar circumstances, can reduce the burden of malicious requirements; and for the owner of a registered trademark in the subjective malicious obvious, can reduce the requirement of "influence" the burden of proof, this timeIfProof of prior use of trademark influence may the registered person, would constitute "effect".Guide the establishment of the integrity of the market competition order isTrademark authority and judicial officesShould bear the responsibility,Believe that with the gradual unification of judges and court in the thirty-first half of the standard applicable, both parties will get better in the fight against the trademark malicious cybersquatting, promote the healthy development of the trademark registrationEffect.

 

(author: Xu Lin)