I will give you a case from 2003. The analysis is quite good, so let’s just take a look at it.

Case: (Japan) Toyota Motor Corporation v. Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co., Ltd. and others over trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes

[Case source] Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court The court's civil judgment "(2003) Erzhong Minchuzi No. 06286"

[Parties to the case]

Plaintiff: (Japan) Toyota Motor Corporation

Defendant: Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co., Ltd.

Defendant: Beijing Yachen Weiye Automobile Sales Center

[Case Summary]

Plaintiff (Japan) Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Toyota Co., Ltd.) and the defendants Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Geely Company) and Beijing Yachen Weiye Auto Sales Center (hereinafter referred to as Yachen Weiye Center) infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, the lawsuit was filed in Beijing The Municipal No. 2 Intermediate People's Court made a judgment after hearing the case through the jurisdiction objection procedure.

The plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to register trademarks for the graphic trademark (hereinafter referred to as the Toyota graphic trademark), the "TOYOTA" trademark, and the "TOYOTA" trademark in automobile-related fields. It enjoys a high reputation in China and is an undisputed well-known trademark. However, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant Yachen Weiye Center was selling automobile products manufactured by the defendant Geely Company with graphic logos and the "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" trademarks at the Asian Games Village Automobile Market in Beijing. The defendant Geely Company’s use of the U.S. and Japan graphic trademarks in prominent locations such as the front faces, tires, steering wheels, and trunks of the cars it manufactured has constituted an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark rights and unfair competition; the defendant Geely Company and Asia When selling the U.S. and Japanese cars involved in the case, Chen Weiye Center used promotional terms such as "U.S. and Japanese cars Toyota Power", "Toyota 8A Engine", "Technical Parameters: TOYOTA 8A" to mislead consumers, which violated the principle of good faith and also constituted trademark infringement. rights and unfair competition. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the court: to determine that the defendant Geely’s use of the American and Japanese graphic trademarks, “Toyota” and “TOYOTA” trademarks constituted an infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark rights; to determine that the defendant Yachen Weiye Center sold products with the above-mentioned infringing logos and used them in advertisements The use of the "TOYOTA" and "TOYOTA" trademarks in the case constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights; it was determined that the above-mentioned actions of the two defendants also constituted unfair competition; the plaintiff's Toyota graphic trademark, "TOYOTA" and "TOYOTA" registered trademarks were determined to be well-known trademarks; The court ordered the two defendants to stop the infringement; ordered the two defendants to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 13,920,000 and to pay the plaintiff RMB 150,000 for the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff to stop the infringement. The two defendants shall bear joint and several liability for this.

The defendant Geely Company argued that the U.S.-Japan graphic trademark and the Toyota graphic registered trademark are not objectively similar. The two graphic trademarks are not only completely different in terms of design concepts and graphic meanings, but also in terms of basic graphic structure and visual appearance. The effect is completely different; American and Japanese cars and Toyota cars have different market positionings. Based on the cautious attitude of the relevant public when purchasing cars, a high-end consumer product, and the main factors such as price, quality, appearance, and brand that they consider when purchasing cars, they have different market positionings. It will cause confusion and misunderstanding. In fact, there has never been any case where the relevant public confused American and Japanese cars with Toyota cars. The defendant's use of the American and Japanese graphic trademarks does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights; the defendant does not engage in unfair competition. The defendant has its own brand strategy and has not implemented any false propaganda. The promotion of the 8A engine used by American and Japanese cars is true, accurate and in line with business practices. The plaintiff’s accusation that the defendant improperly used its trademark or company name has no factual basis; the plaintiff has no factual basis; The word and graphic trademarks should not be recognized as well-known trademarks.

The defendant Yachen Weiye Center argued that the defendant did not infringe the plaintiff’s trademark rights and did not constitute unfair competition to the plaintiff.

First, the Mei Ni graphic trademark used in the Mei Ni cars sold by the defendant is not similar to the plaintiff’s Toyota registered trademark; the defendant did not make misleading false propaganda when selling Mei Ni cars, but only truthfully explained Mei Ni to car buyers. As for the car's engine, the expressions about the "TOYOTA" 8A engine do not constitute infringement; the 8A engine was manufactured by the plaintiff and Tianjin Toyota Motor Engine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianjin Toyota), and the Toyota 8A engine is the title given by Tianjin Toyota. For external use; Tianjin Toyota 8A engine will not be mistaken for an original Japanese engine. Second, the defendant's sale of American and Japanese cars is a legal act that fully complies with the provisions of the law. The defendant is an enterprise registered in accordance with the law and qualified to sell small cars. The defendant should not be liable for infringement compensation. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant has no factual and legal basis and requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.

To prove its claims, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. submitted three types of evidence materials. The first type is evidence materials proving that the plaintiff enjoys the ownership of registered trademark rights; the second type is evidence materials proving that the plaintiff is involved in the registration of the case. Evidence that the trademark is a well-known trademark: The third category is evidence that proves that the defendants Geely Company and Yachen Weiye Center have infringed the plaintiff’s exclusive right to register a trademark and acted unfairly.

The defendant Geely and the defendant Yachen Weiye Center also submitted corresponding evidence materials to prove their defense claims.

[Case facts ascertained by the court]:

The plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. was registered in Japan on August 27, 1937, mainly engaged in automobile manufacturing. On March 10, 1990, it registered the Toyota graphic trademark with the approval of the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China. The approved products were Category 12 of the International Classification of Goods: automobiles and their parts, vehicle tires, and the trademark registration number was 514114. The renewal of registration is valid until March 9, 2010; on December 10, 1989, it was approved to register the word trademark "Toyota" in China, and the approved goods were Class 12 of the International Classification of Goods: automobiles and their parts, Vehicle tires, the trademark registration number is 506683. After renewal of registration, the validity period is until December 9, 2009; on January 20, 1980, it was approved to register the word trademark "TOYOTA" in two different fonts in China. The products used are Category 19 of the International Classification of Goods: Automobiles and Category 12: Automobiles and their parts, and vehicle tires. The trademark registration numbers are 135092 and 135095. Upon renewal of registration, the validity period is until January 19, 2010. Toyota Co., Ltd. has Toyota graphic logos inlaid on the fronts and rears of various models of cars it manufactures.

The defendant Geely Company was established on February 17, 2002. It was established by the merger of the original Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Haoqing Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and Geely Group Linhai Motorcycle Industry Co., Ltd., the original three companies The claims and debts will be inherited by the newly established Geely Company. Geely Company is a holding subsidiary of Geely Group Co., Ltd., and its business scope mainly includes the manufacturing and operation of automobiles (including Geely Meiri sedans and Geely Meiri series buses) and their engines and parts.

The American and Japanese word and graphic trademarks were approved and registered by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China on May 7, 1996. The goods were approved to be used in Class 12 of the International Classification of Goods: automobiles and motorcycles. Trademark registration The number is 836611 and is valid until May 6, 2006. The trademark registrant is Huangyan Huatian Motorcycle Factory. On June 28, 1998, the trademark was approved for transfer and registration, and the trademark registrant was changed to Geely Group Co., Ltd. On April 29, 2000 and January 11, 2001, Geely Group Co., Ltd. applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China to register two American and Japanese graphic trademarks. The application numbers were 1621886 and 1757344. The products applied for were all automobiles. , agricultural transport vehicle, delivery truck, land vehicle engine, automobile (vehicle), automobile, automobile body, motorcycle, light passenger vehicle. The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China made preliminary trademark approval announcements on May 21, 2001 and January 28, 2002 respectively.

Geely Group Co., Ltd. authorizes the defendant Geely Company to use the above-mentioned registered and pending trademarks.

The MR6370A Meiri automobile manufactured by Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., one of the predecessors of the defendant Geely Company, has the Meiri graphic trademark inlaid on the front, rear, steering wheel and outside of the wheel axle. The preface of the vehicle's instruction manual (May 2000 edition) states: "MR6370 and MR6370A light buses" are equipped respectively with the MQ479Q model produced by our company and the 8A-FE four-cylinder electronically controlled gasoline injection engine produced by Toyota Motor Corporation. ", the preface of the instruction manual (October 2001 edition) of this model states: "MR6370A1, MR6370A1 luxury passenger cars", "are respectively equipped with the MQ479Q type produced by our company and the 8A type four-cylinder closed-loop electric vehicle produced by Tianjin Toyota Motor Engine Company. Controlled Gasoline Injection Engine". The promotional brochure of this model indicates that the engine of this car is "TOYOTA" 8A (8A-FE). The advertisement published by Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in the "Beijing Evening News" on March 14, 2001 contains the words "TOYOTA" The words "powerful and attractive price" and "equipped with Japan's TOYOTA 8A-FE four-cylinder electronic injection engine" are written on it.

Tianjin Toyota Co., Ltd. is a joint venture company registered in China between Toyota Co., Ltd. and China Tianjin Automobile Industry Corporation. In China, Toyota Co., Ltd. exclusively transfers 8A-FE engine product technology to Tianjin Toyota Co., Ltd. On January 5, 2000, Geely signed a supply contract with Tianjin Toyota. The contract stipulated that Tianjin Toyota would supply 8A-FE gasoline engines to Geely. On April 12, 2000, the two parties signed a "Supply Status Agreement", stipulating that Tianjin Toyota Company will provide Geely Company with the 8A type gasoline engine in the complete machine state and random accessories and packaging as agreed in the agreement. As a light-duty light-duty engine manufactured by Geely Company Passenger car power. The engine distributors, generators and belts used to adjust the speed of the engines manufactured by Geely and used in the American and Japanese cars involved in the case are all marked with the "TOYOTA" trademark. The side of the engine is marked with: 8A gasoline engine, Tianjin Toyota Company, TTME and Tianjin Toyota's double-ring graphic trademark.

The defendant Yachen Weiye Center was established on July 20, 2000. Its main business scope is the sales of automobiles (including cars), auto parts, lubricants, etc. On January 11, 2001, Yachen Weiye Center signed a U.S.-Japan automobile sales contract with Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., the predecessor of Geely Company. Yachen Weiye Center serves as the exclusive distribution unit of U.S.-Japan MR6370A cars in Beijing. The contract is valid until December 31, 2001. Yachen Weiye Center sold the U.S. and Japanese cars involved in the case, and used the words "Toyota 8A-FE electronic injection engine" and "U.S. and Japanese cars equipped with TOYOTA-8A engines" in its promotions.

The Toyota graphic trademark involved in the case has an elliptical shape on the outside, and a combination of a horizontal ellipse and a longitudinal ellipse on the inside, which is in the shape of the first letter "T" of "TOYOTA". The inner lines are thicker than the outer lines. The plaintiff The graphic trademarks used on Toyota cars have internal and external lines of the same thickness and a single metallic color; the US and Japanese graphic trademarks involved in the case have an oval shape on the outside, a horizontal arc and four longitudinal arcs in the middle, with the same thickness and color on the inside and outside. Comes in a single metallic color.

In addition, China became a member state of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property on March 19, 1985. Japan became a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property on July 15, 1899.

[Points of Dispute] Whether the defendant Geely Company’s use of the American and Japanese graphic trademarks involved in the case constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive right to use Toyota graphic registered trademarks; the defendant Geely Company’s use of the words “Toyota” and “TOYOTA” is involved in the case Whether it constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademarks "TOYOTA" and "TOYOTA", and whether Geely's use of the American and Japanese graphic trademarks and the words "TOYOTA" and "TOYOTA" in the promotional activities involved constitutes unfair competition against the plaintiff; the defendant Whether Yachen Weiye Center's sales of the American and Japanese cars involved in the case and the promotional activities involved in the case during the sales process constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive rights to registered trademarks and unfair competition; the plaintiff's Toyota graphic trademarks, "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" Whether the word trademark is a well-known trademark.

[Court Judgment] The lawsuit filed by Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan) was dismissed.

[Legal Analysis]

The trademark rights obtained by the plaintiff in China should be protected. China and Japan are both members of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. According to the provisions of the Convention, the objects of protection of industrial property are patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, signs of origin or designations of origin. and to stop unfair competition. Therefore, as a company registered in Japan, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. in this case can request to protect its legally acquired trademark rights in accordance with Chinese law and to stop unfair competition against it in China. The Toyota graphic trademark, "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" word trademarks involved in the case have been approved for registration in China. As the owner of the above-mentioned registered trademarks, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. has the exclusive right to register trademarks and should be protected by Chinese law.

Application of the revised Trademark Law (2001). my country's Trademark Law was revised on October 27, 2001, and came into effect on December 1, 2001. Since the alleged infringements of the defendants Geely and Yachen Weiye Center in this case occurred before the effective date of the amendment to the Trademark Law and continued after the effective date of the amendment to the Trademark Law, my country's amended Trademark Law should apply.

Whether the defendant Geely Company’s US-Japan graphic trademark is not similar to the plaintiff’s Toyota graphic registered trademark and will not cause misunderstanding among the relevant public, thereby not constituting an infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive right to register a trademark. Using a trademark that is identical or similar to the registered trademark on the same or similar goods without the permission of the trademark registrant shall constitute an infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Applicable Law in the Trial of Trademark Civil Dispute Cases stipulates: Trademark similarity refers to the font, pronunciation, meaning of the words or the composition of the graphics when compared with the plaintiff's registered trademark. The color, or the similarity of the overall structure after the combination of its various elements, or the similarity of its three-dimensional shape and color combination, can easily cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the product or think that its source has a specific connection with the product with the plaintiff's registered trademark. The determination of trademark similarity shall be based on the following principles: the general attention of the relevant public shall be used as the standard; both the overall comparison of the trademark and the comparison of the main parts of the trademark shall be carried out, and the comparison shall be conducted separately with the comparison objects isolated. proceed; the distinctiveness and popularity of the registered trademark requested for protection shall be taken into consideration. The basic function of a trademark is to enable consumers to identify goods and their origin. The automobile products used by the defendant Geely Company’s American and Japanese graphic trademarks in this case are the same products as the products approved for use by the plaintiff Toyota’s registered trademark. According to the above-mentioned legal provisions of our country, the standard for judging trademark similarity shall be based on the general attention of the relevant public. The so-called relevant public refers to consumers related to a certain type of goods or services marked by a trademark and other operators who are closely related to the marketing of the aforementioned goods or services. The product involved in this case is a car, and the consumers related to it should refer to the buyers or users of the car, and the operators related to it should refer to operators who distribute, provide car maintenance and other services. Therefore, in this case, the relevant public should refer to the car. Purchasers or users and operators who distribute or provide automobile repairs and other services.

The above-mentioned consumers include potential consumers with purchase plans, consumers who are implementing purchasing behavior, consumers and users after purchase. Relatively speaking, cars should be high-priced commodities, and they have high expectations for the cars they buy or use. Brands, performance, prices, and manufacturers generally require a more detailed understanding. Before purchasing, they will make full comparisons and repeated selections between car brands of the same or different grades. They will purchase after careful consideration. After purchasing, they will The use, maintenance and repair of cars can further deepen the knowledge and understanding of the car brand and manufacturer, and can continue to pay attention to the subsequent series of brand products of the brand car; the above-mentioned operators often have knowledge of the car brands they operate. Have a certain degree of familiarity and a high level of understanding, and be able to distinguish between different brands of automobile products and manufacturers, and have strong identification capabilities.

Comparing the plaintiff’s registered Toyota trademark with the U.S. and Japanese trademarks used by Geely, we found that although the outer contours of the two are both elliptical, the former’s elliptical interior consists of three arcs. The lines are thick and heavy, the outer lines are light and thin, the inner horizontal and vertical ovals are prominent, and the overall structure is simple; the latter oval shape is composed of five arcs inside, the inner and outer lines are of the same thickness, and the combination of inner and outer lines forms the Chinese character for "美" The artistic deformation of the first letter "M" in Pinyin and the Chinese character "日" makes the overall structure relatively complex. Observing and comparing the two in isolation, based on the general attention of the relevant public mentioned above, it can be judged that there is a large visual difference between the two. The line structure of the main parts of the two graphic trademarks is also obviously different. The relevant public There is no confusion or misidentification between the two.

In practice, due to Toyota Co., Ltd.’s long-term use of the Toyota graphic trademark and its effective market operations for the automobile products marked by the trademark, the Toyota graphic trademark has become a trademark of Toyota vehicles. The logo has high salience and visibility. However, for the relevant public of automobile products, they have a certain level of familiarity and awareness of the external shape, configuration, performance and whether the automobile products involved are from China, foreign countries or joint ventures. The market positioning, connotation and price of the automobile products marked by the two graphic trademarks are obviously different. Therefore, there will be no misunderstanding about the origin of the American and Japanese automobiles marked by the American and Japanese graphic trademarks, or that they are different from the Toyota cars identified by the Toyota graphic trademark. There is a specific connection between cars.

In summary, based on the characteristics of automobile products, the perception patterns and attention levels of the relevant public of automobile products in the market, the distinctiveness and popularity of the Toyota graphic trademark involved in the case, and the comparison of the Toyota graphic trademark and the American and Japanese graphics Factors such as the differences in the trademarks and the degree of difference in the automobile products marked by the above graphic trademarks can be comprehensively judged to be that the defendant Geely Company’s American and Japanese graphic trademarks are not similar to the plaintiff’s Toyota graphic registered trademark, and the relevant public will not be confused or have any objection. Its origin may lead to misunderstanding, and there will be no adverse association with the plaintiff’s exclusive right to register a trademark. Geely's use of the Meiri graphic trademark on the Meiri cars it manufactures does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to register a trademark. Therefore, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd.’s claim that the defendant Geely’s above-mentioned behavior infringed its registered trademark rights was not supported by the court.

Does the defendant Geely's use of the words "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" when promoting the American and Japanese cars involved in the case constitute an infringement of the exclusive rights to the above-mentioned registered trademarks? Does Geely's use of the American and Japanese graphic trademarks and the promotional behavior involved in the case constitute unfair competition? The existing evidence in this case shows that the defendant Geely used the words "TOYOTA" and "TOYOTA" when promoting the American and Japanese cars involved in the case. It was to explain the performance and source of the engines of the American and Japanese cars involved in the case, and to introduce it to consumers. The technology, manufacturing and other sources of the main components of the automobile product configuration are provided so that consumers can have a basic understanding of the automobile product. This way of introducing or explaining the configuration of the automobile product is in line with business practice; Geely has not The words "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" are used as product marks of the American and Japanese automobiles involved in the case. The words "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" do not have the meaning of being used to identify American and Japanese automobile products and Geely Company. There is no reference to "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" registered trademark rights causing damage. Therefore, the above-mentioned behavior of Geely does not constitute an infringement of the exclusive rights of registered trademarks under Chinese law. In addition, my country’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that unfair competition refers to the behavior of operators that violate the provisions of the law, harm the legitimate rights and interests of other operators, and disrupt the social and economic order; operators shall not use advertising or other methods to influence the quality of goods. , production ingredients, performance, usage, manufacturer, expiration date, origin, etc. to make misleading and false propaganda. False propaganda under the law refers to the deliberate dissemination of information that is inconsistent with reality. According to the facts that have been found, the engines used by the American and Japanese cars involved in the case manufactured by Geely are Type 8A gasoline engines manufactured by Tianjin Toyota Company. Tianjin Toyota Company, as a joint venture company registered in my country by Toyota Co., Ltd., manufactures Type 8A gasoline engines. The technology was obtained through exclusive authorization from Toyota Co., Ltd. Therefore, the 8A gasoline engine involved in the case actually provided technology to Toyota Co., Ltd. and was manufactured by Tianjin Toyota Company. It can be seen that Geely used the words "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" and the words "Toyota Power Attractive Price" and "Equipped with Japan's TOYOTA 8A-FE four-cylinder electronic injection engine" when promoting the U.S. and Japanese cars involved in the case. The use of the words "Produced by Toyota Motor Corporation" in the instruction manual is an exaggeration and is obviously inappropriate. However, the nature of this behavior has not yet reached the level of misleading false propaganda about the performance and use of the product as stipulated in our country's laws. The relevant public of the automobile products involved will not misunderstand that the engines of the American and Japanese cars involved in the case are from Japan. Manufacturing, and since the technology of the 8A engine involved in the case actually comes from the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd., this behavior will not have an adverse impact on Toyota Motor’s brand reputation, and will not cause objective consequences of damaging the plaintiff’s legitimate rights and interests or disrupting the social and economic order. Geely's use of the Mei-Ni graphic trademark on Mei-Ni vehicles and its above-mentioned promotional activities will not cause the relevant public to misunderstand the Mei-Ni vehicles involved or Geely and Toyota Motor or Toyota Co., Ltd. or create a connection between them. Lenovo also did not cause damage to the plaintiff’s corresponding legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the above behavior of Geely does not constitute unfair competition.

Does the defendant Yachen Weiye Center’s sales of the American and Japanese cars involved in the case and its promotional activities constitute an infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive right to register a trademark and unfair competition? As a seller of American and Japanese cars involved in the case, Yachen Weiye Center's sales of automobile products complied with relevant laws and regulations, and it had a legitimate business relationship with the defendant Geely. The American and Japanese cars involved in the case that it sold were manufactured and provided by Geely Company, and the content of its promotion of the American and Japanese cars involved in the case originated from Geely Company. Therefore, it was determined that Geely Company’s actions involved in the case did not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive right to register a trademark. and unfair competition. The above-mentioned actions of Yachen Weiye Center do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive right to register a trademark or unfair competition.

Should the Toyota graphic trademark, "Toyota" and "TOYOTA" registered trademarks of the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. be recognized as well-known trademarks? my country’s Trademark Law clearly stipulates the protection of well-known trademarks.

The law provides more special protection to well-known trademarks than general registered trademarks, including prohibiting the use of trademarks that are identical or similar to the registered trademark on goods that are not identical or similar to the registered trademark, and misleading the relevant public, including prohibiting the use of trademarks that are identical or similar to the registered trademark. The use of a trademark that is identical or similar to the unregistered trademark on goods that are identical or similar to the unregistered trademark is likely to cause confusion. When handling trademark dispute cases, the People's Court may determine whether the registered trademark involved is well-known based on the request of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case. As far as this case is concerned, the plaintiff’s registered trademark does not need to be subject to the special protection of a well-known trademark, because the automobile products involved in the defendant’s alleged infringement are the same goods as the goods approved for use by the plaintiff’s registered trademark. Therefore, it is judged that they are the same as the registered trademark. Whether the trademark used on or similar goods misleads the relevant public, and whether the trademark is similar to the registered trademark, is not the prerequisite for determining whether the registered trademark is well-known. Therefore, in this case, there is no need to judge and determine whether the plaintiff’s registered trademark involved is well-known. The plaintiff’s request to determine that the registered trademark involved in the case was a well-known trademark was not supported by the court.

2006.4.16

15：37