In judicial practice, to determine whether the accused logo is used as a trademark, factors such as the user's subjective intention, usage method, industry practice, and relevant public perception should be comprehensively considered.

First, examine whether the accused logo is used prominently based on the objective use method. The comparison principle of focusing on overall observation and supplementing by local comparison should be followed, and comprehensive identification should be made based on factors such as the location of use of the logo, the size of the logo, the color of use, the environment of use and the presence of other reference signs. For example, the logo is placed in a conspicuous position on the goods and packaging or in the service place, the font of the logo is enlarged and bolded, the color of the logo contrasts with the background of the logo, there is no marking or irregular marking, and the own trademark or enterprise is not marked prominently. Name information, etc., all constitute prominent use of the accused mark. It is worth noting that if the accused mark is only used occasionally and it is difficult for the relevant public to confuse these goods or services with the goods or services of the trademark owner, it cannot be deemed to be conspicuous use.

There are different views in judicial practice on how to understand "prominent use". For example, in the "Qingfeng Baozi Shop" case published in the 12th issue of the Supreme People's Court Gazette in 2018, both the first and second instance courts held that the defendant did not prominently use the "Qingfeng" trademark. The Supreme People's Court held in retrial that the defendant opened multiple columns such as "Into Qingfeng" and "Qingfeng Culture" on its company website, and hung a banner saying "All Qingfeng Catering Staff Welcome You" at the business premises, which constituted "infringement" of "Qingfeng Catering." The prominent use of the "Qingfeng" trademark logo constitutes trademark use.

Secondly, the user’s subjective intention is used to determine whether the user intends to use the accused mark as a source of identification. Qizhizhi’s inquiry shows that the Trademark Law mainly prohibits the subjective intention of the perpetrator to attach other people’s trademarks and goodwill without authorization, and the result of the regulation focuses on the possibility of confusion. Therefore, the subjective intention of trademark use mainly considers whether the user intends to use the trademark to confuse the trademark owner with his own goods or services. If the user does not use someone else's trademark with the intention of confusing the relevant public, then it is difficult to determine the use as trademark infringement.

Whether the accused infringer has the subjective intention to use other people’s trademarks does not require the parties to prove it, and in fact it is difficult to prove it. However, it can be judged from the objective use of the accused mark. If the accused mark is used prominently, or forms a distinctive identifying part of the mark, and such use is likely to confuse the relevant public as to the source of the goods or services, it should be presumed that the user has subjective intention to use it. For example, in the Supreme People's Court Guiding Case No. 30 "Little Thumb" case, the defendant, as an operator in the automobile repair-related market, should be aware of the plaintiff and its trademark and other business resources, but it was engaged in automobile repair and in the process of recruiting investment and franchising through the website. Among them, the trademark involved in the case was used in many places, and there were instances of single or prominent use of the trademark involved in the case, which subjectively had the intention of free riding and clinging to the goodwill of others. Therefore, this use is trademark use.

Finally, whether it is trademark use should also consider the perception of the relevant public. In commercial activities, when the relevant public sees a trademark logo, they may identify the source of the goods or services represented by the logo. Only by gaining stronger and better recognition from the relevant public can a trademark gain higher goodwill and better economic benefits. According to relevant judicial interpretations, the relevant public refers to consumers related to a certain type of goods or services identified by a trademark and other operators who are closely related to the marketing of the aforementioned goods or services. In judicial practice, if the use of the accused mark causes the relevant public to objectively have or may have source recognition of the mark, the accused behavior constitutes trademark use, without the need to examine whether the user has the intention to use the accused mark as a trademark. subjective intention.

No matter whether the accused mark is directly attached to goods or service places, or used in indirect ways such as advertising, as long as it is used in a way that causes or is likely to cause the relevant public to have a cognitive effect of source identification, it will May constitute trademark use. At this time, the plaintiff only needs to prove that the defendant’s behavior used the accused mark. The defendant may argue that the use of the accused mark constitutes fair use, or argue that the use of the accused mark will not cause the relevant public to have the effect of identifying the source. The People's Court should comprehensively consider the alleged infringement behavior and use the relevant public's perception as the standard to determine whether the accused behavior constitutes trademark use.

When judging whether the use of the accused logo is likely to arouse the awareness of the relevant public, the cognitive ability and cognitive environment of the relevant public should also be considered.

Factors such as the gender, age, life experience, knowledge background, and economic conditions of the relevant public will affect their ability to recognize trademarks. For example, male and female consumers may have different perceptions of car brands or cosmetics brands, and relevant publics with different economic conditions may also have different perceptions of luxury brands. In addition, the relevant public will have different perceptions of trademarks in different consumption environments. For example, when shopping in a supermarket, the public will obtain product information through trademarks and product packaging; while when shopping online, they may pay more attention to information such as product descriptions, sales records, and user reviews.