Trademarks have the function of indicating the source of goods and carry the commercial reputation of the trademark owner. Well-known trademarks, including well-known trademarks, are more likely to be maliciously infringed by illegal operators, including direct counterfeiting of well-known trademarks, and registration of well-known trademarks as domain names, company names, etc. There are endless covert means of infringement. This is not only an infringement of trademark rights, but also an act of unfair competition. The purpose of illegal operators' infringement is to establish a relationship with well-known trademarks or their holders, mislead consumers, and thereby open up market sales for their products. When the victim files a lawsuit against trademark infringement, the court will determine whether the defendant has committed trademark infringement. Whether the defendant's trademark will cause confusion among consumers is a factor that the court must consider. If the defendant’s trademark does not cause confusion among consumers, that is to say, the victim’s trademark is not substantially affected, the defendant’s conduct should not be considered infringement. Through the classic case of "Pararo", the U.S. court established eight factors for the court to evaluate whether the defendant's trademark caused confusion and misunderstanding among consumers, which can be used as a reference for my country's legal practice community. These eight factors are: 1. The strength of the plaintiff’s trademark. The more famous the plaintiff’s trademark is, the stronger the protection it will receive. 2. The degree of similarity between the plaintiff’s trademark and the defendant’s trademark. The higher the degree of similarity, the greater the possibility of confusion and misunderstanding by consumers. 3. The degree to which the products or services of the plaintiff and the defendant are similar. The greater the similarity between the products or services of both parties, the more likely it is to cause confusion and misunderstanding among consumers. 4. Whether the defendant intentionally or maliciously caused confusion and misunderstanding among consumers. It will be more beneficial to the plaintiff if the defendant has intentional or malicious intent. 5. Whether the defendant’s trademark has actually caused confusion or misunderstanding. Professional investigation agencies can be used to conduct surveys among relevant consumers. If consumers are actually confused and misunderstood, the plaintiff's chances of winning will greatly increase. 6. The quality of the defendant’s products or services. The lower the quality of the defendant's product or service, the more likely the court will find that consumers are confused and misunderstood. 7. Whether consumers are smart. The less professional and savvy consumers are, the more likely they are to be confused and misunderstood. 8. Whether the plaintiff will produce the defendant’s products or provide the defendant’s services in the future. If the plaintiff provides similar products or services to the defendant in the future, it will be more likely to cause confusion among consumers. Of course, not every case requires comprehensive consideration of the above eight factors. Some of the important factors can be analyzed and comprehensively considered based on the actual circumstances of the case. (Lawyer Xu Zhida, Shanghai Maritime Law Firm)