what are the criteria for determining the evidence of revocation of trademark use after three years? The use evidence provided by the trademark owner shall be pushed forward for three years from the date of filing the application for revocation of the trademark, and the use evidence provided by the trademark owner shall be within this period. Many of the evidence provided does not show the time, so it is not accepted. The relevant trademark pattern and the name of the user should be displayed in the provided use evidence. If the trademark pattern and user are not displayed, it is difficult to explain that it is evidence of the use of the trademark. It's best to have a variety of evidence for trademark use, such as goods, packaging, invoices, transaction vouchers, etc. A variety of evidence can support each other and form a strong chain of evidence before it can be adopted. There is no probative force to provide some evidence, such as evidence that cannot explain the subject and has no time to show it, evidence used on goods other than revoked, and so on. In the process of use, we also remind all trademark owners that they need to carefully keep evidence in case of emergency. Many customers don't know what to do when they know that their trademarks have been revoked for three years. Haobiao.com suggests actively providing qualified and effective use evidence to avoid the revocation of trademarks. We must pay attention to the protection of trademarks, especially those that have been actually used, and protect the rights of trademarks, so that trademarks can play their role and create their due value. The relevant trademark pattern and the name of the user should be displayed in the provided use evidence. If the trademark pattern and user are not displayed, it is difficult to explain that it is evidence of the use of the trademark. It's best to have a variety of evidence for trademark use, such as goods, packaging, invoices, transaction vouchers, etc. A variety of evidence can support each other and form a strong chain of evidence before it can be adopted. There is no probative force to provide some evidence, such as evidence that cannot explain the subject and has no time to show it, evidence used on goods other than revoked, and so on. In the process of use, we also remind all trademark owners that they need to carefully keep evidence in case of emergency. What is a deceptive trademark? I. Interpretation of the "deceptive" clause Article 1, paragraph 1 (7) of China's current trademark law stipulates: "deceptive, easy to mislead the public about the quality and other characteristics or origin of goods." Literally, "cheating" refers to using false words or actions to cover up the truth and make people fall for it; "Misrecognition" refers to wrong understanding. Generally speaking, it can be understood as follows: trademark marks deliberately misinterpret the truth of goods or services in terms of quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, etc., and make the public have a wrong understanding of the characteristics or origin of goods or services. There are roughly the following views on the logical relationship before and after this provision: first, the synonymous explanation relationship, that is, "it is easy for the public to misunderstand the quality and other characteristics of goods or the place of origin" is an explanation of "deception"; Second, the relationship of parallel application, that is, the trademark symbol must be "deceptive" and "mistaken" at the same time in order to apply this clause; The third is to choose the applicable relationship, that is, as long as the trademark symbol meets one of "deception" or "mistaken recognition", the clause can be applied. "Deception" is a summary of this clause, which explains the specific situation of "deception" in an incomplete way. In the article, in addition to clarifying two specific misidentifications of quality and origin, the word "equal" is also used to summarize the misidentification similar to the quality characteristics. In practice, the word "equal" often includes the following situations: raw materials, functions and uses of goods, types of goods or services, sources of goods or services, contents of services, models of goods, weight of goods, quantity of goods, prices of goods, production time of goods, technical characteristics of goods, etc. Second, the main situation of "deceptive" "deceptive" is a summary of Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Trademark Law as amended for the second time, and "mistaken recognition" is an explanation of "deceptive". In the article, besides defining two specific misidentifications of quality and origin, the word "equal" is also used to summarize the misidentification similar to the quality characteristics. In practice, trademark signs are deceptive mainly in the following situations: first, it is easy for the public to misunderstand the characteristics of commodity quality. Quality is the quality of goods or services, which is a neutral word, and there is no difference in itself. If words describing the quality of goods or services are involved in trademark signs, they are often positive words. If the commodity or service itself does not have the quality characteristics described by the trademark mark, it is easy for the public to associate the commodity or service with this quality characteristic, and may make the public mistakenly believe that the commodity or service has this quality characteristic. In practice, trademark marks not only describe the quality characteristics of goods or services, but also describe other characteristics of goods or services. Other features include: raw materials, contents, types, functions, uses, models, weight, quantity, price, production time, technical characteristics, etc. In this case, it is necessary to judge the specific goods or services on the basis of understanding the meaning of trademark marks. For example, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board thinks that the application for trademark "Healthy Cotton Color" on the goods designated for use will easily make consumers understand that it is a cotton fabric that is beneficial to human health and has no irritation to the skin, thus easily making the public misunderstand the characteristics of goods such as quality and raw materials, which constitutes the situation stipulated in Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Trademark Law as amended for the second time. Second, it is easy for the public to misunderstand the origin of goods. The examination or trial of the place names contained in trademark marks may involve many clauses in China's trademark law. Item (1) and Item (2) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of China's current Trademark Law respectively stipulate that Chinese and foreign country names (except those approved by the government) shall not be used as trademarks. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of China's current Trademark Law stipulates that the names of administrative divisions at or above the county level in China and foreign place names known to the public shall not be used as trademarks. Misrecognition of the origin of goods is to judge the situation that "the exclusion marks belong to the country name, the name of the administrative division at or above the county level, the foreign place names and geographical indications known to the public, or the above provisions are obviously not applicable". According to the Trademark Examination and Trial Standards, if a trademark consists of or contains Chinese place names that are well known to the public outside this article, and it is used in the goods designated for use, it will easily cause the public to misunderstand the place of origin of the goods, and it will be judged as having adverse effects, and the provisions of Item (8) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Trademark Law as amended for the second time shall be applied to reject it. Where the place name contained in a trademark is inconsistent with the applicant's location, which is likely to mislead the public, it is judged to have adverse effects, and the provisions of Item (8) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Trademark Law as amended for the second time shall be applied to reject it. As the Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial was published before the implementation of the current trademark law in China, the provisions of Item (8) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1, which was amended for the second time, should now be included in the case that Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the current trademark law in China mistakenly recognizes the place of origin. As can be seen from the above provisions, whether there is a misunderstanding of the place of origin should consider the correlation between the place name contained in the trademark logo and the goods designated for use by the trademark. If there is a certain connection between the two, it will constitute the above-mentioned provisions. If there is no specific connection between the place name contained in the trademark logo and the goods designated for use by the trademark, it does not constitute a misunderstanding of the origin of the goods. For example, the trademark "NEN JIANG Nenjiang and Tu" is designated to be used on the 3th category of rice and corn (ground), which easily leads consumers to misunderstand the origin of the goods. Nenjiang river basin is the main producing area of wheat and soybean in China and an important grain base. If the trademark mark containing "Nenjiang" is designated for use on grain commodities, it will easily make consumers think of the grain producing area, which will lead to misidentification. Third, it is easy for the public to misunderstand commodity producers. The Trademark Examination and Trial Standards classifies the situation that "a trademark consists of or contains the name of an enterprise, which is substantially different from the name of the applicant, and it is easy for the public to misunderstand the source of goods or services" as "other adverse effects" in Item (8) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Trademark Law as amended for the second time. This misunderstanding is caused by the inconsistency between the enterprise name contained in the trademark mark and the actual enterprise name. Enterprise name is a symbol that distinguishes an enterprise from other enterprises, and it is also the most primitive symbol to identify the source of goods. There is no sufficient reason to prohibit a trademark from being composed of or containing the enterprise name, but the enterprise name in the trademark should be consistent with the name of the applicant, otherwise consumers will easily misunderstand the commodity producer. This kind of situation is similar to the misidentification of the origin of goods mentioned above, which is deceptive and easy to mislead the public, and should be within the scope of Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of China's current Trademark Law. For example, the trademark "Xishang Bank" is designated for use in the 36th category of financial services, banking and other services, and the applicant is Hodo Group Co.,Ltd. Limited. After trial, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that the trademark applied for was "Tin Merchant Bank" and the applicant was Hodo Group Co.,Ltd. Co., Ltd., and the name of the trademark applied for was inconsistent with that of the applicant, so there were substantial differences, which easily caused the relevant public to misunderstand the service source, which constituted the situation stipulated in Item (7) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of China's current Trademark Law. To sum up, trademark revocation should be a good reason for trademark owners. Their trademarks should be protected by themselves, and they must be registered and used in time before producing this product, so as to better protect their products. Therefore, it is legal and reasonable to handle their own things according to the law.