Methods to curb trademark squatting: 1. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board will hear cases of objection, invalidation, and withdrawal, and set up cross-examination procedures. After the Trademark Review and Adjudication Review, you will directly face the court. The advantage of doing so is to clarify the responsible agency, save resources for repeated administrative review, protect the parties’ right to intervene, reduce the right holder’s rights protection cycle, and ensure the professionalism of the trial. Of course, after the objection and invalidation are heard by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the principle of bis biscuits needs to be introduced into the invalidation procedure. If the original opponent files an application for invalidation of the same trademark and the facts and legal basis are the same as the original objection filed previously, the decision will not be accepted. 2. Preliminary trademark announcement procedures. Referring to the Madrid international registration procedure, the trademark announcement period after application will be advanced. After applying for a trademark, it is first announced. If there is any objection, the objection shall be heard first. If there is no objection, it will proceed to substantive review. If there is no rejection at the end of the practical review, the registration announcement will be made. The advantage of this is to lower the expectations of squatters, facilitate rights holders to defend their rights as early as possible, and save resources for repeated administrative review. As for the issue of increased rights protection costs that may result from a large number of squatting registrations and the need for rights holders to file a large number of objections, this can be adjusted through other mechanisms mentioned below. 3. Introduce multiple mechanisms into objections and invalidation declarations to facilitate rights protection and increase the cost of preemptive registration. First, one application for opposition/invalidation is allowed to be filed simultaneously against multiple applications/registrations by the same respondent/respondent. The advantage of doing this is to save the cost and energy of rights protection. Secondly, with reference to the domain name complaint handling mechanism, the choice of how to handle the disputed trademark is open to the opponent/invalidation applicant, allowing the applicant to choose in advance whether the disputed trademark will be invalidated or forcibly transferred to the opponent after the opposition/invalidation is successful. Person/applicant for invalidation. The advantage of this is that successful rights protection can obtain authorization at the same time, reducing the phenomenon of excessively long and difficult rights protection and confirmation cycles caused by cyclic squatting by squatters. Third, introduce a default judgment mechanism, which stipulates that if one party does not file a non-respondent, it will be deemed to have automatically abandoned the case, and the case will be handled by default at the request of the other party. The advantage of doing this is to increase the cost of squatters and avoid the current situation where squatters have little loss even if they do not respond. Fourth, introduce a punitive integrity deposit mechanism, requiring both parties to pay a certain amount of integrity deposit when applying/defending, such as RMB 5,000 (this amount is almost the basic market for handling an objection or invalidation application or defense through an agency) price), if one party loses the case, the integrity deposit paid by it will be transferred to the winning party by the review authority as compensation for reasonable expenses, and the money paid by the winning party will be returned to the winning party. The advantage of doing this is also to increase the cost of registration squatters. Only if more money and time are invested, the current phenomenon of "simply winning" by squatters will improve. 4. Establish a blacklist of applicants and activate the active invalidation procedure. First, the active invalidation procedure is changed to the responsibility of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to directly face the court. Second, establish a publicly available blacklist of applicants. For example, if an individual is found to have registered a large number of trademarks of one entity (for example, more than three) or has registered trademarks of more than two entities, the entity will be blacklisted and made public. Third, once the applicant enters the blacklist, the active invalidation procedure will be automatically activated, which will result in all trademark applications under the name of the untrustworthy individual being declared invalid, and the individual will be prohibited from submitting any new registration applications in the future, or Any new applications submitted by them will not be accepted. The advantage of doing so is to punish dishonest people, combat trademark hoarding, and make the proactive declaration process truly effective. 5. Introduce a punishment mechanism for agency registration rush or fraud. At present, there is a phenomenon of professional registration, and agencies and squatters are actually one. To pierce this veil, a punishment mechanism for agency breach of trust can be introduced into the current Trademark Law (Articles 19 and 68). For example, if a trademark agency is found to be related to or conspiring with the squatter, its agency registration will be cancelled, and the person in charge of the agency will no longer be allowed to engage in trademark agency business. Subsequently, newly formed trademark agencies will not be allowed to engage in trademark agency business. agency business.

6. Lower the threshold for right holders to continue using trademarks within the original scope. According to current legal provisions, unregistered trademarks can only continue to be used within the original scope after meeting the requirements of prior use and reaching a certain impact. This requirement is generally too high for foreign rights holders who are most troubled by squatting. It is recommended to delete the requirement of “certain impact” or lower the applicable conditions. A considerable number of prior users, especially foreign rights holders with a long history that have recently entered the Chinese market or have not been widely publicized, can prove that they are in China after receiving trademark infringement complaints, infringement lawsuits, and industrial and commercial counterfeiting initiated by squatters. The trademark was used earlier, but it is very difficult to prove that the earlier use has reached a "certain impact". Some courts and judges also have high standards for determining “certain impact”. This allows professional cybersquatters to initiate serial and serial cases on the grounds of infringement at extremely low cost, leaving the real rights holders with difficulty in safeguarding their rights and engaging in normal business activities, and are constantly faced with huge infringement claims. In short, if the above mechanisms can work together, I believe that the phenomenon of squatting can be better curbed, and trademark registration can bid farewell to the investment attribute and return to the real commercial application scenario. The following are several other minor suggestions for amending the law, put forward together: 7. The time limit for trademark rejection review is changed to 30 days. The current 15 days are too stressful for overseas applicants. 8. Trademark application/registration is allowed to be divided at any time by group. The current system that only allows division upon partial rejection cannot adapt to the diverse needs of reality. The author has a client who sold some global business on some goods to another company as early as five or six years ago. According to the agreement, the two parties use the same trademark, but the business is different. The seller needs to transfer the registration on the sold goods to the buyer. . However, since the seller's trademark registration in China covers the goods of both parties, under the current system, transferring the registration will result in the unsold goods needing to be transferred to the buyer. If you choose to delete some goods, the buyer will be unable to obtain registration. This situation involves many trademarks. This makes it impossible for the buyer to safeguard rights and authorize others to use it in his own name in China. If the trademark application/registration can be divided at any time by group, the above problem can be avoided. 9. It is stipulated that an entity can only appoint one agency in the Trademark Office and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. Every time the agent is changed, all trademark applications and cases under his name will be changed, which is the same as the practice in most countries. 10. It is stipulated that when a registration applicant applies to change his name/address, he only needs to submit one change application to change all trademark applications/registrations under his name. This approach is also the same as that of most countries. The methods for preemptive registration of the ten high-quality trademarks above range from pre-announcement of product review; to the establishment of a rights protection mechanism blacklist; in addition, the trademark rejection reply and approval period is changed to 30 days, stipulating that only one agency can be designated for a subject, and the name and address can only be changed. You need to submit an application and other aspects to contain it. It should be said that it is a relatively comprehensive containment mechanism.