According to the rules of thumb in daily life, trademark rights holders have a say and a certain ability to identify who they permit to use the relevant trademarks, producers have a say in what characteristics their goods have, and whether the goods involved are produced by themselves.

Therefore, the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce’s “Reply to the question whether product identification certificates issued by manufacturing enterprises can be used as a basis for handling cases” (Gongshang Gongzi [1998] No. 254), the former Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce "Reply on Issues Concerning the Identification of Counterfeit Registered Trademark Goods and Logo" (Trademark Case [2005] No. 172), former State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Office "Reply on Issues Concerning Authorization of Trademark Owners to Authorize Others to Identify the Authenticity of Registered Trademark Goods" (Trademark Zongzi [2008] No. 46), the former State Administration of Quality and Technical Supervision's "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the "People's Republic of China and Domestic Product Quality Law" (Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau Zhengfa [2001] No. 43) Article 10, all of which conditionally recognize the probative validity of opinions issued by the trademark owner (manufacturing enterprise) on whether the goods involved are counterfeiting of its own registered trademark (factory name and address). Article 82 of the 2014 Trademark Law Implementation Regulations further clarifies, “During the investigation and handling of trademark infringement cases, the industrial and commercial administrative department may require the right holder to identify whether the goods involved are produced by the right holder or are products produced under his license. ”

Obviously, when a trademark owner issues an identification certificate or identification opinion on whether the goods involved in the case are counterfeit and infringing goods, the scope of the proof should be limited to the following matters: first, whether the goods involved in the case are produced by themselves; second, whether the goods involved in the case are produced by themselves; Whether the relevant trademarks or logos marked are used with their permission. The opinions issued by trademark rights holders on these two types of matters are to confirm whether they have committed relevant acts and the consequences of their acts. As long as they can eliminate reasonable doubt, they have the effect of proof.

As to whether the relevant trademark or logo marked on the goods involved in the case and the registered trademark of the trademark owner constitute the same trademark or a similar trademark, the industrial and commercial authorities should comprehensively consider factors related to the case based on relevant evidence. , and make judgments and determinations in accordance with the law. Such matters do not fall within the scope of legal and valid proof of the trademark owner’s appraisal certificate or identification opinion. The trademark owner's opinion on what constitutes a similar trademark is not an objective statement of the facts known to him, but a subjective inference of the relevant facts, which has no or low probative effect.