1. What are the provisions of the law on malicious preemptive registration of other people’s trademarks? According to the provisions and practice of my country’s Trademark Law, malicious preemptive registration can be mainly divided into the following categories: 1. Copying, imitation, The act of translating someone else’s well-known trademark and applying for registration (Article 13 of the Trademark Law). 2. The act of an agent or representative preemptively registering the trademark of the principal or represented person (Article 15 of the Trademark Law). 3. Preemptively register a trademark that has been previously used by others and has certain influence (the latter paragraph of Article 31 of the Trademark Law). 4. Other acts of preemptively registering other people’s trademarks by unfair means (Article 41, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law). 2. Determination of malicious trademark squatting The above-mentioned provisions of my country’s Trademark Law prohibiting malicious squatting reflect the same legislative purpose, which is to maintain the principle of good faith and prevent unfair competition. Taking trademark review cases as an example, if the applicant can prove that the respondent's application to register the disputed trademark violated the principle of good faith, it can be determined that the subjective intent constitutes bad faith. Malice is the only requirement for identifying malicious squatting and applying the above-mentioned legal provisions. The determination of bad faith mainly considers but is not limited to the following factors: 1. The applicant knows or should know the respondent's trademark due to the existence of agency or representative, trade, cooperation, geography (region) or other relationships with the respondent. 2. The respondent knew or should have known about the existence of other people’s prior rights due to the popularity of the trade name, works, designs, names, portraits, etc. that he applied for to enjoy prior rights or other factors. 3. If the applicant claims that the respondent has maliciously registered its trademark, the originality of the applicant’s trademark needs to be considered. 4. The respondent knew or should have known of the existence of the name of a tourist attraction or place of origin as a public resource because of its popularity. 5. Dispute After the trademark was registered, the respondent, with the purpose of seeking illegitimate profits, hindered the legitimate use of others, demanded high transfer fees, licensing fees, and infringement compensation from others, or conducted publicity that misled the public, causing market chaos. 3. Legal application of trademark squatting in bad faith. In addition to bad faith, the identification and legal application requirements of various specific squatting behaviors are different. The "Trademark Trial Standards" formulated by the Trademark Office have clear regulations on this. Let’s take the review case as an example and give a brief explanation. (1) Applicable requirements for the protection of well-known trademarks in Article 13 of the Trademark Law 1. Paragraph 1 protects well-known unregistered trademarks. (1) The applicant’s trademark is well-known but has not yet been registered in China; (2) The disputed trademark constitutes a copy, imitation or translation of the well-known trademark; (3) The goods using the trademarks of both parties are the same or similar goods; (4) The use of the disputed trademark Can easily lead to confusion. 2. Paragraph 2 protects well-known registered trademarks. (1) The applicant’s trademark is well-known and registered in China; (2) The disputed trademark constitutes a copy, imitation or translation of the well-known trademark; (3) The goods using the trademarks of both parties are not identical or similar goods; (4) The disputed trademark Use to mislead the public and harm the interests of well-known trademark owners. According to practice, the recognition of a well-known trademark mainly considers whether the trademark is well-known in my country. The applicant may provide evidence of the well-known reputation of its trademark before the disputed trademark application in accordance with Article 14 of the Trademark Law. In other words, when we refer to the Trademark Law to resolve cases of malicious trademark registration, the Trademark Law provides specific behaviors that can be used to determine that the other party has maliciously registered a trademark. As long as the above-mentioned behaviors exist, the local Trademark Office can legally To revoke trademark rights, however, the Trademark Office generally will not directly impose administrative fines on the party that registered the trademark. After the trademark owner has revoked the trademark rights through the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, if he wants to pursue civil compensation, he can only file a civil lawsuit.