Article 1 and Article 7 of my country's Trademark Law after the third revision clearly stipulate the principles of "protecting the interests of consumers" and "preventing behaviors that deceive consumers", but there are still obvious problems at the level of specific rules. Roughness and deficiencies may lead to the failure of the value goal of trademark law to protect consumer interests. In trademark infringement judgments, judges only occasionally mention consumers, and do not include them in the adjudication pattern of weighing interests, let alone give priority to the interests of consumers when there is a conflict of interest between consumers and trademark owners. Consumer protections in trademark law are unintentionally ignored. In view of the fact that infringement of consumer interests is not uncommon in trademark infringement disputes in recent years, this raises the issue of how to improve consumer protection in trademark law. The purpose of trademark law is to clarify the purpose and means of trademark law in terms of value objectives. Reducing search costs and promoting product quality are the purposes of trademark law. The mainstream trademark?information?theory holds that trademarks play a trust function by enabling consumers to associate identifying marks with product features that are unobservable to the naked eye, such as the taste of drinks and the comfort of clothing. This function not only makes it a reality for consumers to shop with confidence based on trademarks, but also allows sellers to maintain and improve the quality of products or services in order to obtain incentives for repeat transactions. Trademarks also perform a language function more effectively by promoting information exchange between sellers and consumers. This function is achieved by reducing consumer search costs and simplifying the consumer decision-making process. By leveraging the trust and language functions of trademarks, trademark law promotes consistent product quality and reduces consumer search costs. The use of trademark holders to monitor infringement is a tool of trademark law. The normal functioning of trademark trust and language functions depends on trademark information not being interfered by similarity marks. The ultimate goal of the trademark system to prevent confusion or counterfeiting is to enhance consumer welfare. However, due to the high transaction costs involved in individual consumer litigation, the small interests involved in any individual consumer, and the scattered damage, it makes it unsuitable for injured consumers to be monitored. Suitable candidates for trademark information integrity. Trademark law prevents latecomers from adopting confusing marks by granting property rights to users of prior marks, and uses the self-interested nature of mark holders to ensure that they consciously monitor any threats that undermine the authenticity of trademark information. For the purpose of incentivizing infringement monitoring, trademark law provides trademark holders with equitable and monetary remedies. Trademark law is the unity of ends and means. The purpose of protecting the clarity and freedom from interference of trademark information is to help consumers easily discover and distinguish products they trust and love from many brand products. This ultimate goal must be achieved by giving trademark holders the first opportunity to develop and Cultivate these brand incentives to achieve. The better way to incentivize them is to protect their brand investment, and the better way to protect their brand investment is to hand over the functions of monitoring infringement and filing lawsuits to trademark holders. Giving trademark holders strong economic incentives to invest in advertising and monitor infringements, trademark law makes it possible for consumers to distinguish brands, build trust in their favorite brands, and quickly find the brand products they need in the market. The purpose and means of trademark law are simple and clear: to enhance consumer welfare by benefiting trademark holders. In the design of specific rules, we should improve the protection of consumer interests and improve the criteria for determining the likelihood of confusion. Although my country's current trademark law introduces the infringement determination standard of "possibility of confusion" among consumers in Article 57, Paragraph 2, the specific operating rules need to be refined. First, the judicial interpretation should clarify the specific factors that must be considered in the "possibility of confusion" test. The 13 U.S. circuit courts of appeals have their own summary of test factors, but they mainly consider six main factors, namely actual confusion, strength of the plaintiff's mark, mark similarity, market proximity, consumer attention and the defendant's intention, which is worthy of consideration. my country can learn from it. Secondly, factors that measure consumer attention should be quantified. Consumers' cognitive motivation and ability determine their attention level, and motivation is determined by participation and individual cognitive needs. Ability may be affected by the shopping environment, limited information, opportunities to compare junior and senior brands, incomprehensible Affected by factors such as information and time constraints and individual cognitive qualifications. The level of attention is inversely proportional to the likelihood of confusion. The scientific quantification of cognitive factors can avoid the arbitrariness and arbitrariness of judicial decisions and enhance the credibility and rationality of judicial results. Add provisions for "fair use" of trademarks.

Although Article 59 of the Trademark Law stipulates some restrictions on trademark rights, it is not comprehensive enough, especially the lack of trademark "fair use" provisions, which makes it impossible to effectively adjust trademark rights and freedom of speech as well as competitors' use of marks in a non-trademark sense. conflict between. Trademarks are not only symbols that identify the source of goods or services, they may also be given new meanings by consumers and enter the public discourse system and become part of our vocabulary. Certain trademarks often fill gaps in our vocabulary and add a modern twist to our expressions. Trademarks carry so much communication information that allowing trademark owners to restrict their use undermines our common interest in free and open communication. At the same time, restricting competitors’ descriptive use in a non-trademark sense will unreasonably hinder competition. Therefore, my country's trademark law should add provisions on fair use of trademarks to better coordinate the interests of trademark owners, consumers and competitors. Add trademark liability for false advertising. In recent years, there has been a phenomenon of some trademark owners using false advertising to deceive consumers. In addition to making trademark owners bear responsibilities under the Advertising Law and Consumer Rights Protection Law, they should also be made to bear trademark responsibilities. That is, trademark owners who deliberately use false advertising to deceive consumers and cause serious consequences can be brought to court by the victims. sued to cancel its registered trademark. A trademark is both a quality guarantee and a symbol of credibility. When a trademark has become synonymous with deliberate deception, it is a reasonable choice to let it disappear from the market. Only by increasing the illegal costs for trademark owners can we eradicate the persistent problem of false advertising. Reasonably weigh the interests of consumers in judicial decisions and establish a corporatist trademark law concept. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and "self-interested man" postulates of market economics, supplemented by Jeremy Bentham's "utilitarianism" and the efficiency theory of the Chicago School, defeated various other proofs The theory of trademark right legitimacy has become the mainstream trademark law theory today. Its philosophical basis is individualism, and the trademark law guided by it is an individualistic trademark law. Although individualism has its historical and progressive significance, the disadvantages of individualistic trademark laws that ignore cooperation have become increasingly prominent. The abuse of trademark rights such as aggressive trademark litigation, indiscriminate issuance of infringement warning letters, and improper restrictions on trademark use has become more and more serious, making the trademark construction of cooperativism Law became the only choice. Cooperativism emphasizes the contribution of consumers to the creation of trademarks and gives them the freedom to express themselves using trademarks; it attaches great importance to the rights and interests of competitors, prevents trademark monopoly and inhibits free competition; strengthens trademark protection and protects the enthusiasm of trademark owners for brand investment. The ultimate goal of corporatism is to create a market environment of healthy competition and win-win cooperation, which will ultimately benefit consumers. Designing a litigation landscape for weighing multiple interests. The view that trademark owners are regarded as "substitute avengers" of consumers is relatively common in the judgments of British and American judges. The traditional trademark litigation pattern is for the trademark owner to act as the agent of the consumer and to fight against the defendant as the competitor. However, since the criterion for trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion among consumers, this litigation model places too much emphasis on the trademark owner. and the interests of confused consumers, while ignoring the interests of unconfused consumers and competitors. It does not confuse consumers that they have received substantial benefits from the entry of competitors. New research shows that confusion is not necessarily harmful. Confusion may lead consumers to try lower-priced or better-quality alternatives that they would not otherwise purchase. The end result is that price and quality competition is promoted, which in turn benefits consumers. Therefore, the judge should change his thinking mode and transform the litigation subject from a "two to one" pattern (confused consumers of the plaintiff and his agent versus the defendant) to a "two to two" pattern (confused consumers of the plaintiff and his agent) (the defendant and his agent’s unconfused consumers), which avoids the institutional deviation of over-protecting some confused consumers while ignoring other unconfused consumers. Introducing scientific evidence from consumer surveys. Trademark infringement litigation is a process of determining "possibility of confusion", and "possibility of confusion" involves the evaluation and detection of consumers' invisible psychological state. It is obviously unscientific to rely solely on the judge's subjective assumptions, so it is necessary to introduce consumers The scientific evidence from the investigation serves as a reference for judges to make decisions. Questions such as whether consumers are confused, what kind of consumers are confused, and what proportion of consumers are confused can only find the correct answers by conducting field surveys of consumers in the market. Methods such as comparing mark similarities are no substitute for actual market research on consumers. Therefore, the moderate introduction of consumer investigation evidence is the future development trend of trademark justice.