Article 2 of the Lanham Act of the United States stipulates: "Any trademark that can distinguish the applicant's goods from the goods of others shall not be refused to be registered in the principal register because of its nature. Registered, unless the mark:

......

(e) consists of:

......

(2) When used on or in connection with the applicant’s goods, the trademark is mainly a geographical description of the trademark, except that it can be registered as a mark of origin in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of this Law, or

(3) When used on or in connection with the applicant's goods, the trademark is primarily a geographically deceptive misdescription of the goods,

......

1. (f) Except as expressly excluded in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (3) of this Article, There is no other provision which shall prevent the registration of a mark which has been used by the applicant and which has distinguished the applicant's goods in commerce for a continuous period of five years before the date of request for recognition of distinctiveness. Proof of substantial exclusive use of the trademark on and in connection with the applicant's goods shall serve as true evidence that the trademark has become distinctive when used on and in connection with the applicant's goods. A mark that, when used on or in connection with the applicant's goods, is primarily a geographically deceptive misdescription of the goods, but which became commercially distinctive before the date of the passage of the NAFTA Implementing Act[1] Registration of the trademark of the applicant’s goods.”

It can be seen from this provision that in the United States: (1) Trademarks that are geographically descriptive of the goods cannot be registered.

(2) A trademark that is geographically descriptive of the goods but has been used and commercially differentiates the applicant's goods can be registered. That is, a trademark that is geographically descriptive of the goods and has acquired distinctiveness through use can be registered. .

(3) Trademarks that are geographically descriptive of goods can be registered as origin marks.

(4) A trademark that deceptively misrepresents the geographical location of the goods cannot be registered, whether it has acquired distinctiveness through use or serves as a mark of origin.

(5) A trademark that deceptively and misrepresents the geographical location of the goods has become a trademark that distinguishes the applicant’s goods before the date of the passage of the NAFTA Implementation Act and continues to be valid.

It can be seen that the registration of geographical name trademarks in the United States mainly considers two factors: whether it is distinctive and whether it is a geographically deceptive misdescription. Trademarks that are geographically descriptive of goods are not distinctive and cannot be registered, but trademarks that have acquired distinctiveness through use can be registered. Products with geographically deceptive and incorrect descriptions cannot be registered, nor can they obtain distinctiveness through use.

The European Trademark Regulations also adopt basically the same standards as the United States, namely whether they are distinctive and whether they are deceptive. In addition, Articles 711-2 and 711-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code, Article 8 of the German Law for the Protection of Trademarks and Other Signs (Trademark Law), Articles 3 and 4 of the Japanese Trademark Law, and the British Article 3 of the Trademark Law and other national trademark laws also have basically the same provisions. Therefore, the international review of geographical name trademarks adopts basically the same standards, namely whether they are distinctive and whether they are deceptive.

Regarding the distinctiveness of geographical name trademarks, the trademark laws of various countries generally stipulate that marks that only indicate the origin of goods are not distinctive and cannot be registered as trademarks. If the place name trademark acquires distinctiveness through use, it can be registered as a trademark. Regarding whether it is deceptive, the trademark laws of various countries generally stipulate that a trademark that is deceptive (including deceptive in terms of geographical origin) cannot be registered, nor can it be registered by acquiring distinctiveness through use. It can be seen that various countries have very wide restrictions on the registration of geographical name trademarks, that is, geographical name trademarks that are deceptive or have no distinctiveness cannot be registered.

2. Comparison of Chinese and foreign regulations

It can be seen from the provisions of our country’s and foreign trademark laws on the registration of geographical name trademarks that the similarities between the two are: geographical names can be used as collective trademarks. Registration of trademarks, certification marks or geographical indications; registered place name trademarks will continue to be valid. The difference between them is that our country uses the level of administrative divisions or the degree of public awareness and whether it has other meanings as the criteria for determining whether to register, while foreign countries use whether it is distinctive and deceptive as the criteria. Our country limits the registration of geographical name trademarks to the scope of administrative division place names above the county level or foreign place names known to the public without other meanings, while foreign countries limit the registration of geographical name trademarks to areas that are deceptive or do not have the meaning to be obtained through use. Distinctive place names.

In practice, my country's standard for grasping "place names have other meanings" is that the place name as a vocabulary has a definite meaning and the meaning is stronger than the meaning of the place name, and will not mislead the public. [2] It can be seen that in our country, if a place name has other meanings, and the other meanings are stronger than the meaning of the place name, such as "Chaoyang", in addition to being the name of a city in Liaoning Province, it mainly means facing the sun, it can be registered. If it has no other meaning, such as "Tianjin", has no other meaning besides the place name, or the place name has a stronger meaning than other meanings, such as "Yunnan", it cannot be registered as a trademark. The author understands that this standard in my country is based on the following judgment: if a place name has other meanings, and the other meanings are stronger than the meaning of the place name, it means that the place name has inherent distinctiveness for registration as a trademark, and there is no need to prove whether it has acquired distinctiveness through use. ; If the place name has no other meaning, or the place name has a stronger meaning than other meanings, the place name cannot be registered as a trademark, even if it has acquired distinctiveness through use. It can be seen from this that the standards for registration of geographical names and trademarks in my country are somewhat different from those in foreign countries. As mentioned above, foreign countries such as the United States believe that if "the trademark mainly describes the geographical description of the goods", the trademark cannot be registered. The expression "mainly" here is similar to what my country refers to in practice when the meaning of a place name is stronger than other meanings. In this case, the United States believes that it cannot be registered, but it can be registered if it has gained distinctiveness through use, while my country believes that it absolutely cannot be registered. . Of course, this provision in the United States also means that if the trademark does not mainly describe the geographical description of the product, this is similar to the situation in my country where other meanings are stronger than the meaning of place names in practice, although the US trademark law does not regulate this kind of The situation clearly stipulates that the author understands that registration should be allowed based on inherent distinctiveness just like in my country. Therefore, the author believes that my country's trademark registration standards must be stricter in terms of the names of administrative divisions above the county level and foreign place names known to the public.

However, our country only applies this standard to administrative division place names above the county level and foreign place names known to the public. It applies to administrative division place names below the county level, non-administrative division place names and foreign place names unknown to the public. Registration is not required to have other meanings, regardless of whether the meaning of the place name is stronger than other meanings, and regardless of whether it must obtain distinctiveness through use. It can be seen that my country’s standards for trademark registration of administrative division place names below the county level, non-administrative division place names and foreign place names unknown to the public are looser than the standards of the above-mentioned countries.

In addition, the above-mentioned countries will not register deceptive place names. Although Article 10, paragraph 1, item (7) of my country's Trademark Law also stipulates that "exaggerated publicity and deceptive "Marks cannot be registered, but this regulation sets deceptiveness and exaggerated publicity as conditions that must be met at the same time. It is already difficult to apply to situations where place names are deceptive." In practice, our country does not apply this provision to geographically deceptive situations.[3] Generally, the "other adverse effects" clause in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the Trademark Law is used to solve the problem. Misleading the public. [4]