Article 10 of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Trademark Dispute Cases" stipulates the principles for determining the similarity of trademarks. The determination of whether trademarks are identical or similar shall be based on the following principles:

(1) Taking the general attention of the relevant public as the standard;

(2) Comparing not only the overall trademark, but also the main parts of the trademark, The comparison should be conducted separately with the comparison objects isolated;

(3) To determine whether the trademarks are similar, the distinctiveness and popularity of the registered trademark requested for protection should be taken into consideration.

(1) The principle of general attention of relevant publics involves two issues: relevant publics and general attention.

First of all, the relevant public referred to in the Trademark Law is neither the design expert or the trademark authority of the relevant trademark, nor the manufacturer of the relevant goods or the goods authority, but the person who registered the accused infringing trademark with the plaintiff. Ordinary consumers or general operators of identical goods or similar goods under the trademark. The Beijing High Court believes that when determining the relevant public, the impact of factors such as the nature, type, and price of the product on its scope and level of attention should be considered.

AIPPI (International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property) believes that the likelihood of confusion should be determined by a person with ordinary intelligence, attention and acceptance among the relevant public. General attention means that before identification, they did not deliberately prepare for identification, nor did they pay attention deliberately, but only paid general attention in a conventional way during daily consumption activities or business activities. Make a general judgment and then decide whether to choose one of the same or similar goods or services under similar trademarks.

(2) The principle of combining the overall comparison and the main part comparison

The overall comparison is the basis. Generally, the comparison is based on the two trademarks as a whole, and the trademarks cannot be divided into If there are multiple parts, one part is the same or similar, it will be deemed similar; but at the same time, the main part or the significant part of the trademark must be considered. If the significant parts of the two trademarks are the same or similar, which may easily lead to confusion and misunderstanding by the relevant public, the trademark shall also be deemed to be similar. It should be determined that they constitute similar trademarks.

(3) Principles of isolated comparison

Isolated comparison refers to placing the trademarks to be approximated at different times and locations for observation and comparison, rather than comparing the two trademarks. Compare the trademarks side by side. This comparison includes two aspects, one is the distance in time, and the other is the distance in location. Time lag is because consumers' memory of trademarks fades over time. The isolation time is too short. For example, if a trademark encountered two days ago is recognized today, because the memory is in the fresh period, it is generally not easy to be confused. The isolation time is too long. Any memory, no matter how accurate it is, will become vague and lose the meaning of comparison. Separation means that similar trademarks should be placed in different places for comparison, rather than placed in the same place for consumers to observe. Otherwise, this is tantamount to demanding the trademark user, even if the difference is insignificant, here may also be identified in this case.

(4) Taking the distinctiveness and popularity of the trademark as factors to consider

How to combine the distinctiveness and popularity of the trademark with the basic judgment principle of similarity? Regarding this issue, Kong Xiangjun There are specific examples in his writings. From a legal sense, there are at least three situations where trademarks are similar:

First, the two compared trademarks are not very well-known. For this, the overall comparison is usually based on natural factors such as sound, shape, and meaning. In comparison, this approximation is closer to the actual approximation;

Secondly, the two compared trademark offices have comparable and high reputations. And usually have a profound usage background (such as CYTS’s CYTS trademark and China National Travel Service’s CITS trademark). The similar comparison is not limited to natural factors, but also considers in-depth factors such as their actual usage background;

Three When the comparison marks are very different in popularity, the similarity is usually determined by comparing the main parts instead of the overall comparison.