1. Can a malicious trademark registration lawsuit not be recognized as infringement? Registered trademark is a fact-finding behavior, which generally means revoking the ownership of the trademark and re-identifying the original owner's trademark ownership. Generally, it will not bear other tort liability. 1. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Trademark Office may make a decision or ruling to declare a registered trademark invalid. Specific provisions: 2. Article 47 A registered trademark that has been declared invalid in accordance with the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of this Law shall be announced by the Trademark Office, and the exclusive right to use the registered trademark shall be regarded as nonexistent from the beginning. 3. The decision or ruling declaring a registered trademark invalid has no retrospective effect on the judgment, ruling and conciliation statement of trademark infringement cases made and executed by the people's court before the invalidation, the decision on handling trademark infringement cases made and executed by the administrative department for industry and commerce, and the executed trademark transfer or use license contract. However, if losses are caused to others due to the malice of the trademark registrant, compensation shall be made. 4. If the trademark infringement compensation, trademark transfer fee and trademark use fee are not returned in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, which obviously violates the principle of fairness, they shall be returned in whole or in part. Second, malicious cybersquatting was rejected. 1. Malicious attachment to others' goodwill and cybersquatting of high-profile trademarks were rejected. The Trademark Office rejects the improper intention of attaching to the goodwill of others, which violates the principle of good faith and easily causes adverse social impact. 2. A large number of applications for registered trademarks, such as common names and trade terms, which have the intention of improperly occupying public resources, shall be rejected. If the intention improperly occupies public resources, disturbs the normal trademark registration order and easily causes adverse social impact, the Trademark Office shall reject it according to law. 3. The malicious application for registration of celebrity names, trademarks and trademarks of others' prior rights shall be strictly examined and rejected voluntarily. It is easy for the public to misunderstand the source of goods or services, and the Trademark Office strictly examines and actively rejects them. 4. The trademark application of the same enterprise that is maliciously repeated and continuously registered shall be rejected through strict examination and reference to previous objections and invalid cases. 5. Intention to copy and plagiarize other people's well-known trademarks is obviously an act of subjectively and maliciously registering and hoarding a large number of trademarks, which does not have the legitimacy of registered trademarks and violates the principle of public order and good customs. The trademark was declared invalid by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board according to law. Thereafter, the applicant applied for registration of the same trademark again. In the examination, the Trademark Office identified it as a repeated malicious trademark registration act against the same enterprise, and with reference to the reasons of prior invalidity, it considered that the application act disturbed the order of trademark registration and violated public order and good customs, and rejected it. 6. The Trademark Office also concentrated on handling a number of trademark cases of malicious hoarding and malicious attachment to the goodwill of others, thus curbing malicious registration in violation of the principle of good faith. Therefore, only malicious cybersquatting causes actual losses to the original trademark owner, and if the circumstances are serious, it will bear the infringement, and the legal consequences of infringement are nothing more than compensation to the original trademark owner. The new trademark law also increases the amount of compensation for trademark infringement, but if it is determined that malicious cybersquatting constitutes infringement, the original trademark owner must provide tangible evidence, but cybersquatting does not constitute infringement.