1. Defense against common names of registered or unregistered trademarks If a trademark is a common name of a commodity and is widely used in a certain geographical area, you can request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to revoke the plaintiff's trademark through trademark disputes. As a part of a trademark, a generic name is properly used by anyone. In the case of Beijing Huicheng Liquor Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Huadu Brewing Food Industry Co., Ltd. infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, Huicheng Company is the registrant of the trademark "Liu Liu", and the goods approved for use in this trademark are the 33rd category "alcoholic beverages (except beer)". The defendant Huadu Company used the same words as the trademark of "Liu Dai" on its alcoholic products without authorization, which was called "Jing Liu Dai Liquor" and sold it in the market for a long time, openly and in large quantities, infringing the plaintiff's trademark right. Huicheng Company filed a lawsuit on April 6, 2006. The Beijing Higher People's Court held through trial that the generic names of commodities usually refer to the names stipulated by national standards and industrial standards or established in the industry, including full names, abbreviations, abbreviations and generic names. "Beijing Zhi Draft" has made it clear that net flow (or retort flow and retort distillation) is the general name of a specific liquor, which has been popular in Beijing and even North China for a long time. Huicheng Company enjoys the exclusive right to use the registered trademark for the word "Liu Liu", but it has no right to prohibit others from using "Liu Liu" as the generic name of a specific product in their own products and publicity. Huadu Company uses the words "Beijing Liu Liu Wine" to show that the nature and characteristics of the product are legal use, but this use is not trademark use. After the generic name of a commodity is applied for registration as a registered trademark or a part of a registered trademark, the trademark owner may enjoy the exclusive right to use the trademark, but shall not restrict others from using the generic name of the commodity. 2. The defense of the drug name to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Drug names are also registered trademarks. If others use the drug name on drugs without the permission of the trademark registrant, it does not constitute trademark infringement, but the premise is that the approved drug name cannot be highlighted. The reasons are as follows: First, the conflict between drug name and drug registered trademark is caused by the disharmony between drug management system and trademark registration system in China. As a party, there is no subjective fault. Second, it is unfair to allow drug names to be registered as trademarks, which will cause drug producers to monopolize drugs and is not conducive to economic development and social progress. 3. Previous enterprise names, fair use trademarks of Chinese time-honored brands and enterprise names all belong to the category of commercial marks, but they belong to different legal protection and adjustment categories. Should be handled in accordance with the principles of honesty, fairness, balance of interests and protection of prior rights, whether there is confusion among consumers and the popularity of infringed trademarks. If the name of the enterprise is not used significantly, causing no market confusion, and the manufacturer and address are clearly marked, it will not be treated as trademark infringement. In particular, if the parties have no malice in the conflict of rights between registered trademarks and enterprise names caused by historical reasons, they should solve the conflict fairly and reasonably according to the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account historical factors and the current situation of use, and should not simply be identified as trademark infringement or unfair competition; For disputes over commercial logos such as time-honored brands with clear ownership, we should respect history and maintain the established legal order. The font size, enterprise or enterprise name abbreviation in the enterprise name that has certain market popularity, is well known to the relevant public and actually plays the role of a trade name shall be regarded as the enterprise name and protected to stop unfair competition. If the use of the enterprise name constitutes infringement of trademark rights, it may be ordered to stop using the enterprise name according to the specific circumstances of the case, or the way and scope of using the enterprise name may be restricted. Generally speaking, the plaintiff requests to cancel or change the name of the defendant's enterprise on the grounds of trademark infringement or unfair competition. If the enterprise name has been used continuously for more than many years and has market stability, it should not be revoked. 4. Other rationality and correct use of registered trademarks. As long as it conforms to the fair use stipulated in the trademark law, it can be used as a defense. For example, Article 10 of China's Trademark Law stipulates that place names of administrative divisions at or above the county level or foreign place names known to the public shall not be used as trademarks. However, unless the place name has other meaning, the registered trademark using the place name will remain valid. This article allows the registration of a trademark with a second meaning and a name above the county level, such as the "Red River" trademark. But in fact, it limits some rights of trademark owners, that is, the reasonable use of registered trademarks as place names in other people's goods. At the same time, the value of the trademark can be divided into the symbolic value of the trademark as a text and the logo itself, and the differential value added by the operator to establish the connection between the trademark and the commodity and the commodity producer through business activities. The scope of prohibiting the exclusive right to use a trademark should exclude the basic symbol value of the trademark of the legitimate use of the trademark owner. Generally speaking, the defender's proper use of trademarks should meet the following conditions: the defender is subjectively kind, and only uses the goods as descriptions and representations, not as trademarks or packaging and decoration, which will not cause confusion or misunderstanding among the relevant public. All these require the defendant to explain and prove. 5. Sellers, ordinary OEM processors and trademark printers have all fulfilled their duty of reasonable care. Article 56 of China's Trademark Law stipulates the defense of trademark infringement defendants, that is, they sell goods that they don't know are infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, and can prove that the goods were legally obtained by themselves and explained to the supplier, and they will not be liable for compensation. At present, trademark infringement disputes caused by foreign trade "OEM" should be reasonably determined according to whether the processor has fulfilled the necessary duty of examination and attention. There are two problems to be solved here. First, "ignorance" means that there is no fault subjectively. So, how to determine "I don't know"? In judicial practice, "I don't know" is usually based on the general attention of normal people, whether it can be identified as infringement. The seller bears the burden of proof and must prove that he has made a reasonable and careful review of the sale of infringing goods. That is, if the seller can prove that he has fulfilled his reasonable duty of care, he can be exempted from civil liability for compensation. Second, it is generally necessary to have formal and legal channels to purchase goods, prove that the goods are legally obtained by themselves, and explain the suppliers. Channels that cannot provide legal evidence and are not recognized by suppliers are generally difficult to be recognized in court. Of the two points, if the second point can be proved, it is generally considered that the first point has been proved unless the plaintiff provides evidence to the contrary. 6. Registered trademarks are not actually commercialized. The registered trademark requested for protection has not actually been put into commercial use. According to the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Overall Situation of Intellectual Property Trial Service under the Current Economic Situation, ordering to stop infringement can be used as the main way to determine civil liability, and the fact that it is not actually used can be considered as appropriate when determining the liability for compensation. Except for the reasonable expenses of rights protection, if there is no actual loss or other damage, compensation will generally not be determined according to the profits of the accused infringer; If the registrant or assignee only uses the registered trademark as a tool to claim rights without actual intention, it may not be compensated; If the registered trademark specified in the Trademark Law has been discontinued for three consecutive years, the claim for damages may not be supported. 7. The defendant is an independent brand trademark, which constitutes a similar degree. According to the trial spirit of the Supreme People's Court, the trademarks of independent brands did not cause market confusion. At the same time, the similarity between goods and trademarks is examined in the form of technical comparison, and the significance and market popularity of registered trademarks are considered. 8. Stopping relevant behaviors will cause significant interest imbalance between the parties or violate the public interest, or it is actually impossible to implement. According to the spirit of the Supreme People's Court's trial, if stopping the relevant behavior will lead to the imbalance of major interests between the parties, or it is contrary to the social interests, or it cannot be implemented in practice, the interests can be weighed according to the specific circumstances of the case, and more adequate compensation or economic compensation can be adopted instead of deciding to stop the behavior to solve the dispute. The obligee has been addicted to infringement for a long time and neglected to protect rights. When he requests to stop the infringing act, he can seriously consider not ordering to stop the act if ordering to stop the related act will cause great imbalance of interests between the parties. 9. Limitation of action. The expiration of the limitation of action is generally the absolute defense of the defendant. The plaintiff must prove the continuous state of the defendant's infringement for infringement and compensation prosecution that exceeds the limitation of action of two years. On this premise, the defendant's infringement was established, but the amount of compensation was postponed for two years from the date of prosecution to calculate the plaintiff's loss or the defendant's profit. 10. The defense that domain name constitutes trademark infringement. As for the plaintiff's request to cancel, transfer, cancel and stop using the domain name that is the same as or similar to its trademark (including Pinyin), it is generally determined that "the defendant's domain name or its main part constitutes a copy, imitation, translation or transliteration of the plaintiff's well-known trademark, or is the same as or similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and domain name, which is enough to cause misidentification by the relevant public." It must be proved that the plaintiff's trademark constitutes a well-known trademark, but the defendant does not think that the plaintiff's trademark constitutes a well-known trademark. Secondly, the defendant can also prove that he has an interest in the domain name or its main part, or has a legitimate reason to register and use the domain name. Finally, the defendant proved that the domain name website was not the same or similar goods as the plaintiff, and it was not used for profit-making e-commerce, that is, it was not used for commercial purposes, which was also one of the effective defense reasons.