Before, the understanding and application of the principle of trademark case review had become a common knowledge in the industry and was widely accepted. However, in trademark authorization cases, many parties advocated that the review standards should be consistent or judged in the same case, and the disputes in these cases not only involved the salience of trademarks, but also the judgment of confusing possibility.

The new version of the Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial points out that in order to stabilize the trademark registration order, improve the trial efficiency and unify the trial standards, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) should, in principle, refer to the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services when trying cases. As the items of goods and services are constantly updated and developed, the situation of market transactions is constantly changing and the case differences of trademark cases, the judgment of similar goods or services will be adjusted accordingly. In the trial of trademark rejection review, objection, refusal of registration review, invalidation, invalidation review, revocation and revocation review, if the judgment of similarity of goods or services is involved, the case judgment shall be made on the principle of this standard.

In the administrative dispute case of trademark objection review between Honglong Sewing Machinery and Equipment (Nan 'an) Co., Ltd. and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Fuzhou Guanhua Metal Products Co., Ltd., the Supreme People's Court made a retrial judgment that the trademark registration is subject to a case-by-case review system, and the fact that related trademarks are approved for registration in other commodities is not the legal basis for the case to argue whether the trademark can be registered.

In my opinion, the concept of the principle of case review is that trademark review emphasizes different treatment in different situations, and the verdict of a case only has legal effect on the case and excludes precedents.

The author noticed that the trademark authorities mostly responded to the applicant's claim that the same case should be judged in the same case and the examination standards should be consistent, that is, the trademark examination is case-specific, and the previous case cannot be used as the basis of the case, but they did not analyze the differences between the case and the previous case. In the relevant cases, the people's court has something in the relevant judgment, such as "the fact that other trademarks are approved for registration is not the natural basis for the trademark in this case to be approved for registration". However, the above statement is difficult to reflect the unique wisdom and sincere attitude of the referee to the case. Of course, some judgments will explain the case in detail. On the one hand, they will interpret it from many procedural stages such as trademark application, rejection, objection, invalidation and judicial review. On the other hand, they will discuss the dynamic facts from the perspectives of specific use of trademarks, citing trademark popularity and situation change, and present the reasons for the referee to adopt the principle of case review to the applicant.

The principle of trademark case review is based on the application for registration, and it has been specifically cited in the administrative stage and litigation procedures. The reasoning in legal documents is simple or complicated, which basically shows its form in practice. In trademark practice, there are indeed many characteristics and differences of individual cases. Therefore, in order to pursue the results of fairness and justice, the application of the principle of case review is justified and supported by the following aspects.

First of all, with the rapid development of society and the rapid development of technology, the physical attributes of goods or services may change, which may lead to differences in the group scope, functional use cognition, production links and sales terminals of the relevant public. Therefore, the examination case of the prior trademark should not be rigidly applied to the latter case; Secondly, the application trademark and citation trademark in the former case and the latter case may be different in their respective formation time, element composition and distinctive parts. Considering the industry characteristics, actual use and popularity of the designated goods, the difference will be even greater. If the conclusion of the former case is compared with the latter case, it is likely to deviate from the objective facts; Finally, there is a trial-level relationship between different procedures of trademark examination. Due to different understandings of specific laws in different stages, different conclusions may be drawn, and the determination made in the previous trial-level procedure cannot be used to bind the post-trial-level procedure, otherwise the above-mentioned trial-level system will lose its significance.

the principle of case review comes from different situations and different treatments, and it is natural to treat the same situation in the same way. However, the author found in practice that examiners or judges tend to interpret the principle of case review in different situations and different treatments, while the idea of treating the same situation in the same way is habitually contradictory. The author believes that even if the legitimacy of this principle is affirmed, it does not mean that it can be applied indefinitely, but the application of the principle of case review should be moderately limited in specific cases.

Articles 1, 11 and 12 of China's current Trademark Law stipulate the situations that cannot be used and registered as trademarks, which is the embodiment of absolute reasons. As long as the trademark logo applied for registration belongs to the contents stipulated in the above articles, it is not allowed to be registered, and the applicable standards should be uniform. In the administrative judgment (212) No.1671, the people's court considered whether the word "ZEN" in the trademark "ZENPEP" had any adverse effects. Although the trademark review was conducted on a case-by-case basis, the consistency and continuity of the review criteria should be ensured. Otherwise, the principle of protection of reliance interests in administrative law would be undermined, and trademark applicants would be at a loss. In the (216) Administrative Judgment No.7 of Supreme Law Firm, regarding whether the trademark of "Gaipu Underwear" has adverse effects, the Supreme People's Court thinks that although the trademark review and judicial review procedures should consider individual cases, the basic basis of the review is China's trademark law and related laws, and the unity of law enforcement standards cannot be ignored on the grounds of case review. Compared with the relative reason clause that harms the interests of specific civil subjects and prohibits trademark registration, the space for case measurement of absolute reason clause should be strictly limited.

When the examiner or referee makes a legal judgment on absolute reasons, and then it needs to be overturned, it is necessary to fully discuss the reasoning and present the justified reasons to the parties and the public. If you go back on your word rashly, then the principle of case review mentioned at this time is no longer prudent in its initial sense, but almost a rhetoric, from which the public can not find logical self-consistency and legitimacy. Therefore, in cases involving absolute reasons, the principle of trademark case review should be limited.

Articles 13, 15, 3, 31 and 32 of China's current Trademark Law are about the content of relative reasons, and regulate disputes over private rights. If Company A was sued by Company B for using the trademark "R and Tu" on furniture products, the court held that the trademark "R and Tu" was not similar to the trademark of the right involved, and Company A did not infringe the exclusive right of registered trademark of Company B.. During this period, Company A applied for the registration of the trademark "R and Tu" on furniture products. In the objection review, the first, second and retrial procedures of administrative litigation, the trademark "R and Tu" was considered to be similar to the right trademark of Company B, so it was not approved for registration. In the administrative ruling (214) Zhixingzi No.18, the court held that there were differences between the facts of the former case and the case, and that the former case was a civil infringement case, which was different from the starting point of the trademark authorization and confirmation case involved in the case, and the former case could not be the basis for determining whether the disputed trademark and each cited trademark in the case constituted similarity.

As a private right, trademark rights, when the effective civil judgment determines that the trademark involved does not constitute an approximate trademark, it means that the law has drawn a boundary between the parties, and both parties can "gallop" in their respective territories. In the administrative litigation of trademark authorization, the registrant of the right trademark refuses to apply for a trademark for relative reasons, and the core reason is still the similarity of the trademark, which is no different from the substantive dispute in civil cases. Under the protection of the civil procedure law, both parties fully implemented the means of attack and defense, and the court made a legal judgment that would not cause confusion and misunderstanding, which was close to the objective truth, and there was no "reversal" of individual differences in administrative cases.

if the trademark use in the previous case does not infringe the exclusive right of a specific trademark, the registration of the trademark should not be hindered by the exclusive right of a specific trademark. Trademark administrative procedure itself cannot directly produce individual cases. Unless there is evidence to prove that the evidence and facts in the administrative stage have changed, the application of the principle of case review should be limited. The principle of trademark case review is consistent with the review standards, and there is no difference between the same case and the same judgment. It should not be neglected. On the basis of affirming the legitimacy of this principle, we also need to pay attention to its alienation in practice. Cases involving absolute reasons for trademarks and relative reasons for existing judicial judgments can be used as two types of limited case review principles, thus achieving the purpose of making trademark review more standardized and orderly and giving trust to the vast number of applicants.

I hope I can help you to adopt it.