Administrative litigation refers to a lawsuit filed by citizens, legal persons or other organizations regarding whether the administrative action is legal or not if they believe that their rights and interests have been harmed by an administrative action. Administrative litigation in trademark cases in my country is conducted in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Litigation Law).

(1) Jurisdiction over trademark administrative litigation cases. Article 17 of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates: Administrative cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the administrative agency that initially made the specific administrative act is located. In a case that has been reviewed, if the review authority changes the original specific administrative action, it may also be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the review authority is located. ?This provision shows that, under normal circumstances, administrative cases are under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the defendant is located. At the same time, Article 25 of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates that if two or more administrative agencies take the same specific administrative act, the administrative agency that used the specific administrative act shall be the same defendant. In this regard, Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates: If two or more people's courts have jurisdiction over a case, and the plaintiff can choose one of the people's courts to file a lawsuit, the people's court that first receives the lawsuit shall have jurisdiction. ?

(2) Scope of trademark administrative litigation cases. According to Article 11, Item 8 of the Administrative Litigation Law, citizens, legal persons or other organizations that believe that administrative agencies have violated their personal rights and property rights may file an administrative lawsuit. Any party concerned who is dissatisfied with any penalty involving property rights may file a lawsuit. As far as trademark administrative litigation cases are concerned, according to the Trademark Law and its detailed rules, if the party concerned is dissatisfied with the punishment imposed by the industrial and commercial administration for the following seven acts, he or she may file an administrative lawsuit.

a. Products using a trademark are crudely manufactured and passed off as good quality to deceive consumers;

b. Products that are stipulated by the state to use a registered trademark are not sold without a registered trademark. Sold on the market;

c. Unregistered trademarks are used as registered trademarks;

d. The trademarks used fall under the provisions of Article 8 of the Trademark Law and words and words that are not allowed to be used as trademarks. Graphic;

e. Infringement of the exclusive right to register a trademark, the industrial and commercial administration authorities shall order the infringement to cease and impose a fine;

f. Destroy toxic, harmful and useless goods. ;

g, sealing up or confiscating trademarks and logos.

(3) Defendant in trademark administrative litigation. In administrative litigation, the defendant refers to the administrative agency that the plaintiff believes has infringed upon its legitimate rights and interests and the people's court notifies the respondent bank. The defendant in trademark administrative litigation is the Administration for Industry and Commerce, which imposes administrative penalties on trademark violations. The determination of the defendant's status is due to the People's Court's notification of responding to the lawsuit, rather than the filing of the lawsuit by the plaintiff. Only after being notified by the people's court to respond to the lawsuit, the defendant can enjoy the rights and assume the obligations in the lawsuit. The scope of defendants in trademark administrative litigation is specific and is limited to the industrial and commercial administration authorities.

(4) The Implementing Rules of the Trademark Law stipulate that reconsideration is preemptive, that is, if the party concerned is dissatisfied with the administrative penalty, it must first undergo reconsideration. In a reconsidered case, when the reconsideration agency decides to maintain the original specific administrative act, the administrative agency that made the original specific administrative act shall be the defendant. After reconsideration, if the superior industrial and commercial administrative organ upholds the original penalty decision, then it is the original penalty decision that is binding on the rights and obligations of the parties. According to the law, the industrial and commercial administrative organ that made the original penalty decision is the defendant; if the original penalty decision is changed, When it comes to punishment decisions, it is the reconsideration decision that binds the rights and obligations of the parties concerned. At this time, the superior industrial and commercial administrative agency that makes the reconsideration should be the defendant. When two or more administrative agencies use the same specific administrative act, the administrative agency that made the specific administrative act is the same defendant. Under normal circumstances, specific administrative actions are taken by a single administrative agency, but this does not rule out the possibility that two or more administrative agencies may make them simultaneously. For specific administrative actions performed by an organization entrusted by an administrative agency, the entrusting administrative agency is the defendant.

The Industrial and Commercial Office is an agency dispatched by the county-level industrial and commercial administration. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law, the industrial and commercial office should not handle trademark violation cases in its own name, but it can investigate commercial cases and implement the handling of the county-level industrial and commercial administrative organs. It was decided that if a punished person refuses to accept the decision and files an administrative lawsuit, the county-level industrial and commercial administration agency that dispatched the industrial and commercial office shall be the defendant.

(5) Trademark review cases do not fall within the scope of administrative litigation cases. Parties to cases involving determination of trademark rights may not file administrative lawsuits, but may apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for review. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law, whether to grant the exclusive right to a trademark and whether to revoke the exclusive right to a registered trademark are matters within the scope of administrative responsibilities and fall within the scope of administrative processing. For example, if a party is dissatisfied with the rejection of a trademark registration application, he or she may apply for review, and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board will make the final decision. If there is a dispute over a registered trademark, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board will also make a final ruling. The so-called final decision can be adjudicated, which means that the parties cannot sue in the People's Court, and the People's Court cannot rule or make a judgment on it. As for the civil compensation part, the Industrial and Commercial Administration The agency is essentially engaged in mediation work. If the parties are dissatisfied, they can file a civil lawsuit with the people's court, and the court will make a judgment on the amount of compensation and method of payment.

(6) The applicable law in trademark administrative litigation cases must be accurate. Cases characterized as trademark infringement should be handled based on the Trademark Law and its implementation rules. Do not apply other administrative regulations and local regulations to handle trademark cases

(7) Prevent trademark cases from exceeding rights. Trademark violation cases are often linked to other illegal cases. The parties involved in the case violated trademark laws and regulations and also violated other industrial and commercial administration regulations. Or the parties in the cases violated trademark laws and regulations and also violated other illegal industrial and commercial administration regulations. To prevent handling cases beyond the scope of authority, two main aspects should be paid attention to: first, not handling cases that are clearly stipulated by laws and regulations to be handled by other agencies; second, not applying laws and regulations that should be applied by other agencies.

(8) Compensation cases regarding trademark infringement. If a party concerned is dissatisfied with the Industrial and Commercial Bureau's order to compensate for economic losses, it should not be treated as an administrative lawsuit. Ordering compensation in trademark infringement cases has an obvious civil nature. Whether to compensate or not to compensate, or whether to compensate more or less, are all issues between the infringers. The industrial and commercial administrative agencies are in the position of a middleman. The parties concerned should be told that the industrial and commercial administrative organs only mediate compensation issues. If they are not satisfied with the mediation, they can file a civil lawsuit in the People's Court.

(9) In the investigation and handling of trademark infringement cases, the determination of the nature of the infringement is generally carried out by the industrial and commercial bureau handling the case. If the determination cannot be made, the industrial and commercial bureau at the next higher level can be asked to determine the nature of the infringement. However, some counterfeit trademarks cannot be distinguished from the genuine ones based on the trademark logo. Sometimes quality issues can be used as circumstantial evidence to draw our attention to possible counterfeit trademark issues. Generally speaking, if there is no evidence that a product is counterfeit, it cannot be considered a counterfeit trademark. When determining the nature, in addition to obtaining direct evidence from the registrant, sometimes if the perpetrator of counterfeit goods is found, it can also be directly identified.