Both corporate names and trademarks are commercial identifiers in a broad sense. The former is used to distinguish business entities, and the latter is used to distinguish the source of goods or services. The purpose of differentiation is to convey information to consumers to prevent confusion. while maintaining good market order. However, conflicts occasionally arise between the two, often with greater social impact, and therefore need to be clarified and treated with caution.

1. The relationship between trademark law and anti-unfair competition law. my country's current Trademark Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law protect commercial marks based on authorization and give them a specific scope of protection. When rights cross boundaries and conflict arises, prior use is the legal idea. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides corresponding supplements to the protection of commercial marks by excluding unethical means of competition and setting limits on commercial conduct by reviewing and responding to the claims of parties.

Second, the regulatory model of trademark law and anti-unfair competition law. Trademark rights must first protect the interests of registered trademark owners. Prominently using a trademark as an enterprise name on the same or similar goods causes the public to misunderstand, and the enterprise name is used as a trademark, which breaks the scope of the exclusive right to register a trademark. Currently, when there is a conflict between trademark rights and corporate name rights, there are three main solutions:

First, if the corporate name is the same or similar to a previously registered trademark, it is a trademark use of the corporate name. It falls within the scope of trademark infringement regulations. To constitute this type of trademark infringement, the requirements are as follows: the infringed prior trademark is a registered trademark; the corporate name uses the same or similar words as the trademark; is used for the same or similar goods; is used prominently; and is likely to mislead the relevant public. recognize.

Second, the corporate name is the same as a previously registered trademark or an unregistered well-known trademark. Although it is not used prominently, it is enough to cause confusion and falls within the scope of anti-unfair competition regulations. To constitute such unfair competition, the essential requirements are: others have previously registered a trademark or a well-known unregistered trademark; the company's trade name is the same as the trademark; and its use is sufficient to cause confusion.

Thirdly, in the "Several Opinions on the Overall Situation of Intellectual Property Trial Services under the Current Economic Situation", the Supreme People's Court specifically specified opinions beyond the above two methods. If the rights to registered trademarks and business names The conflict is caused by historical reasons, and the parties do not have any bad intentions. Trademark infringement or unfair competition cannot simply be determined. The specific circumstances of the case must be taken into account, and historical factors and current use must be taken into consideration to resolve the conflict fairly and reasonably.

Therefore, what kind of law should protect the conflict of rights between a company name and a trademark? Since it involves the scope and method of protection of different rights subjects and rights, it needs to be considered based on the specific circumstances of the individual case. .

Third, the resolution of trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition disputes related to time-honored brands.

Usually, the tracing of the order of use of commercial marks, that is, the tracing of prior rights, is relatively easy to determine within the institutional framework of my country’s trademark registration and enterprise name registration. However, once a conflict involves a time-honored brand, it is not necessarily reasonable to rely on prior use as the most important source of rights. It is also necessary to trace the use history of the conflicting parties.

Its characteristic is that the legal factual factors that determine subjective malice will account for a smaller proportion in the consideration and balance, and when evaluating the objective behavioral performance of the accused actor, the evaluation scope will be expanded on the vertical timeline. , and then use history as a defense for the behavior of the accused subject, so that the inference turns to support the rationality of the source of rights, and ultimately eliminates the bad faith of the accused behavior.