In practice, considering the use of trademarks, one of the typical cases in which trademarks with similar trademarks are allowed is the * * * case between lacoste Co., Ltd. (France), Crocodile International Pte Ltd. (Singapore) and Crocodile T-shirt Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong) about crocodile graphic trademarks and related word mark. In addition, the trial of the following cases is because the disputed trademark has gained a certain popularity through long-term use, and it is judged that the existence of it and the cited trademark in the market is not easy to cause confusion among the relevant public and does not constitute an approximate trademark.
This paper holds that, on the one hand, from Article 30 of the Trademark Law? No confusion? For legislative purposes, the judgment of trademark approximation should be based on whether it is easy to cause confusion. Even if the logo of the disputed trademark itself is similar to the quoted trademark, if the disputed trademark has a high reputation after long-term use and has formed a stable market order, and the relevant public can distinguish it from the quoted trademark and it is not easy to cause confusion, it should be judged that the disputed trademark and the quoted trademark do not constitute similar trademarks and are allowed to exist.
But, on the other hand, it should be strictly controlled? Has a stable market order been formed? The above-mentioned standards and evidentiary requirements of the Supreme Court's opinion should be applied as individual exceptions to the approximate judgment of trademarks, and the standards should not be lowered at will, and the scope of application should be expanded, especially in the trademark registration review and objection procedures. The specific reasons are as follows: First, China's trademark law implements a trademark registration system. In order to avoid conflicts with other people's previously registered trademark rights, civil subjects should make reasonable avoidance when applying for registration and using a trademark, so as to eliminate the possibility of confusion of commercial signs as much as possible, and the publicity of trademark registration also provides sufficient guarantee for reasonable avoidance.
For an unregistered trademark that is still in the process of trademark registration review and objection, unless the filing evidence can prove that it has been formed through continuous use before the date of applying for registration of the cited trademark? Stabilize market order? No confusion. From the point of view of the applicant's failure to fulfill his duty of reasonable care and avoidance, it should not be supported to ask for an approximate trademark mark based on the use evidence after the application date of trademark registration, otherwise the right space reserved by law for the prior trademark registrant will become a jungle, which will seriously deviate from China's trademark law? Encourage registration? 、? No confusion? System design.
Second, in practice, even if competing trademarks and cited trademarks with similar trademarks have existed in the market for a long time and established a high market reputation, it does not necessarily rule out the possibility of confusion among the relevant public. Perhaps their market reputation is generated and established in interdependence, because the relevant public thinks that they belong to the same family or have a specific relationship.
So you can't obtain the evidence of the use and popularity of the disputed trademark submitted by the applicant for the registration of the disputed trademark alone? Has formed a stable market order, and the relevant public can distinguish it from the cited trademarks? The conclusion. The applicant for the disputed trademark shall also provide evidence that the relevant public will not confuse the disputed trademark with the cited trademark.