First of all, I don’t admit that I am an expert, I just want to discuss this issue with you. This is an issue related to the improper use of a registered trademark, and more precisely, it is an issue of whether it is consistent with the applicable circumstances of improper use of Article 44, Item (1) of the Trademark Law, "changing a registered trademark on one's own initiative." If the above-mentioned legal provisions are followed, his behavior will be ordered by the Trademark Office to correct within a time limit or even be revoked. However, I personally think that this issue can be viewed in two situations: 1. The fundamental purpose is to make changes on your own. From the information you provided, it is not yet certain that the trademark owner has improperly used the registered trademark. The reason is that the commonly used trademark (on the right) is not marked with registration marks such as "circle note" or "circle R", so it cannot be determined that it is a registered trademark. Trademarks can be used without registration (but are not protected by exclusive rights granted by the Trademark Law). Therefore, I have reason to believe that the trademark (on the right) is an unregistered but already used trademark. It has nothing to do with the registered trademark (on the left) and cannot be regarded as a self-change of the registered trademark... In addition , the owner of the two trademarks is the same person, and there is no issue of infringement, so the use of the trademark (on the right) is reasonable. 2. Self-change is a fact. To put it another way, if two trademarks apply for registration at the same time, they will definitely be judged by the Trademark Office as identical or similar trademarks on the same product. The reason is that the change in appearance does not hinder the fact that the words of the two trademarks are essentially the same, that is, the distinctiveness has not changed. Article 5C(2) of the Paris Convention specifically emphasizes that the trademark used by the trademark owner is only different in form from the registered trademark, but does not change its distinctiveness. , shall not render the registration invalid, nor shall it reduce the protection afforded to the trademark. Although the provisions of the Paris Convention are only a reference, specific trademark issues in our country must be handled in accordance with the Trademark Law. But in fact, the Trademark Office's attitude towards this issue is gradually loosening and consistent with this clause, and is not unchangingly strict... In fact, even if it is strictly enforced according to the law, it is difficult to operate, because the new Trademark Law allows trademarks to be After the right holder freely marks the registered trademark, it has become difficult to judge and execute the behavior of changing the registered trademark on his own as mentioned above. In addition, trademark right is a kind of private right, and its protection form is mainly the civil remedy of "if the people do not take action, the officials will not investigate". If the registered trademark has been slightly adjusted in use and does not infringe the trademark rights of others, who will take it seriously... This is how the Trademark Office has been since the implementation of the new Trademark Law in 2001. The reasons for the decision to revoke the registered trademark were not cited in Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law... In summary, although it is illegal to change the registered trademark (appropriately) on your own, it is reasonable. side. Comrades acquiesce...