According to Article 10 of the Trademark Law: The following signs shall not be used as trademarks: (1)...(7) Exaggerated propaganda and deceptive... The trademark remains valid. ?, the editor below will give you a detailed introduction to the legal knowledge related to trademark deception. The three main situations in which trademarks are deceptive are:

First, it is easy for the public to misunderstand the quality and other characteristics of the goods.

Quality refers to the quality of goods or services. It is a neutral term and has no distinction in itself. If a trademark sign involves words that describe the quality of goods or services, they are often positive words. If the goods or services themselves do not have the quality characteristics described by the trademark mark, it is easy for the public to associate the goods or services with such quality characteristics, and may cause the public to mistakenly believe that the goods or services have such quality characteristics. In practice, a trademark mark not only describes the quality characteristics of the goods or services, but also describes other characteristics of the goods or services.

Other features include: raw materials, content, type, function, use, model, weight, quantity, price, production time, technical characteristics, etc. In this case, the judgment must be based on understanding the meaning of the trademark mark and combining it with the specific goods or services. For example, regarding the trademark "Healthy Cotton Color" designated for use on Class 25 clothing, hats and other goods, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believes that the applied trademark "Healthy Cotton Color" is used on designated goods, which is easy for consumers to understand that it is beneficial to human health. , cotton fabrics that have no irritating effect on the skin, etc., thus easily causing the public to misunderstand the quality, raw materials and other characteristics of the goods, constituting the situation specified in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law.

Second, it is easy for the public to misunderstand the origin of goods.

The review or trial of geographical names contained in trademark signs may involve multiple provisions of my country’s Trademark Law. Items (1) and (2) of Article 10, Paragraph 1, of my country's current Trademark Law respectively stipulate that Chinese country names and foreign country names (except with the consent of the government of that country) shall not be used as trademarks. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of my country’s current Trademark Law stipulates that the names of administrative divisions above the county level and foreign place names known to the public shall not be used as trademarks. The misidentification of the origin of goods is determined when the mark is clearly excluded from the name of a country, the name of an administrative division above the county level, a foreign place name known to the public, or a geographical indication, or when the above provisions are obviously not applicable.

The "Trademark Examination and Trial Standards" stipulates: A trademark consists of a place name in my country that is well-known to the public outside this article or contains such a place name. If it is used on the goods for which it is designated, it will easily cause the public to have doubts about the origin of the goods. If the application is misidentified, it will be judged to have adverse effects and shall be rejected in accordance with the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law. If the place name contained in the trademark is inconsistent with the location of the applicant and is likely to cause misunderstanding by the public, it will be judged to have adverse effects and shall be rejected in accordance with the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law.

Since the "Trademark Examination and Trial Standards" were promulgated before the implementation of my country's current Trademark Law, the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the second revised Trademark Law apply, and It should now be included in the misidentification of origin in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of my country's current Trademark Law. It can be seen from the above provisions that whether there is a misunderstanding about the origin of the goods, the correlation between the place name contained in the trademark logo and the goods designated by the trademark should be considered. If there is a certain connection between the two, it is easy for the public to misunderstand the place of origin of the goods. This constitutes the above-mentioned situation; 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 designated use of the "Nenjiang" and "Tu" trademarks on Class 30 rice and corn (ground) commodities may easily cause consumers to misunderstand the origin of the commodities. The Nen River Basin is my country's main wheat and soybean producing area and an important grain base. If a trademark containing "Nenjiang" is designated for use on food products, it will easily remind consumers of the place where the food is produced, leading to misunderstandings.

Third, it is easy for the public to misunderstand commodity producers.

The "Trademark Examination and Trial Standards" stipulates that a trademark consists of or contains a company name, and there is a substantial difference between the name and the applicant's name, which may easily cause the public to misunderstand the source of the goods or services. The situation falls within the scope of "other adverse effects" in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law.

This misunderstanding is caused by the inconsistency between the company name contained in the trademark logo and the actual company name. A company name is a sign that distinguishes an enterprise from other companies. It is also the most original sign to identify the source of goods. There is no sufficient reason to prohibit a trademark from being composed of a company name or containing a company name, but the company name in the trademark should be consistent with the name of the applicant. , otherwise it is easy for consumers to misunderstand the producer of the commodity.

This situation is similar to the misidentification of the origin of goods mentioned above. It is deceptive and can easily cause the public to misunderstand it. It should fall under Article 10, Paragraph 1 (1) of my country's current Trademark Law. Within the scope of item 7). For example, the trademark "Xishang Bank" is designated for use in Category 36 financial services, banking and other services, and the applicant is Hongdou Group Co., Ltd. After review, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that the applied trademark is "Xishang Bank" and the applicant is Hongdou Group Co., Ltd.. The applied trademark is inconsistent with the applicant's name and there are substantial differences that may easily cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the service, which constitutes my country's current The circumstances specified in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the Trademark Law.

The deceptiveness of a mark refers to the inconsistency between the meaning and content of the mark and the attributes of the product itself, resulting in deception. The mark itself is a representation of the commodity, and the final result of deceptive marks is misunderstanding by consumers. In judicial practice, the determination of whether a trademark is deceptive requires that the trademark closely describe the origin, raw materials, production process, nature, special features, functions, etc. of the goods, and the description itself is false or leads consumers to misunderstand. Ultimately it will mislead consumers.

In practice, the above terms are used if the description of the goods by the mark is false or cannot be proven to be true. If it is unclear whether the description is true or false, use a distinctive clause. In short, the logo is the representative of the product. The logo cannot falsely describe the product, nor can it display the relevant attributes of the product. A trademark should be original, and a certain attribute of the product cannot be seen from the description of the mark. A good trademark should be memorable to consumers without being connected to other attributes of the product.