When an applicant applies for a registered trademark, one of the most important review items is whether the trademark pattern submitted has distinctive features. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law, signs lacking distinctive features will not be granted exclusive trademark rights. . The distinctive features of a trademark usually refer to the characteristics that a trademark should possess in order to fulfill its functions and that are sufficient to enable the relevant public to distinguish the source of the goods.

Take the two trademarks "Chunmian" and "Yaru" as examples. Both of them have applied for registration in clothing products. We can find that the "Yaru" trademark is easy to establish a unique connection between the trademark and the product provider, and is suitable as a trademark to facilitate consumers to distinguish the source of the product, so we say that this trademark has the distinctive characteristics of a trademark.

As for the "pure cotton" trademark, since in the clothing industry, pure cotton is the main raw material for clothing fabrics, and it is also a word often used by clothing manufacturers in marketing and publicity of their products, its meaning generally refers to a certain brand. It is a kind of material and cannot be pointed to a certain manufacturer in a targeted manner. In addition, "pure cotton" and "pure cotton" are very similar in terms of font shape and pronunciation. Therefore, a trademark similar to "Chunmian" does not have the distinctive characteristics of a trademark.

Usually, when we examine whether a trademark has distinctive features, we mainly consider the following aspects:

1. The various elements that constitute the trademark mark itself (including meaning, Calling and appearance composition, etc.), such as overly simple lines or graphics, overly complex text, graphics, numbers, letters, or overly complex combinations of these elements, are not suitable as signs to distinguish the source of goods. A logo that is too complex is as difficult to recognize and call as a logo that is too simple.

2. Products designated by trademarks. For example, the logo of Apple Computer is used in the fruit industry. To put it simply, merchants selling apples use the appearance logo of Apple as their trademark. Or if a shoe store uses the appearance of leather shoes as its trademark, it is obviously unable to distinguish the source of the goods, and it is also inconvenient to distinguish these specific merchants from other similar businesses among consumer groups.

3. The cognitive habits of the relevant public of the goods designated by the trademark. The cognitive habits of the relevant public are a very important factor when considering whether a mark is distinctive. A trademark is a sign that distinguishes goods or service providers, and the subject of its identification is the relevant public of specific goods or services. It can also be said that when we observe whether a sign has distinctive features, we should stand from the perspective of its relevant public or consumers in this field. For example: the review of large medical device trademarks should be from the perspective of medical institutions, not patients; the review of baby product trademarks should be from the perspective of adults, not children; the review of cigarette packaging sealing string trademarks The review should be from the perspective of the tobacco factory, not the smokers.

4. The actual use situation of the industry in which the goods designated by the trademark are used. This is mainly due to the fact that some trademarks, from the perspective of the mark itself, meet all the requirements for registered trademarks, and have even been approved for registration, or It was once rated as a well-known trademark or famous trademark. However, due to improper use and unfavorable protection, these trademarks have lost their distinctive features in the industry. Such trademarks include "aspirin", "nylon", "Jeep", etc. When these signs become generic terms for behavior and thus lose their distinctive features, they are no longer suitable for protection as registered trademarks. This also reflects the importance of well-known trademark protection from one aspect.