(I) Three Kinds of Trademark Infringement Acts Causing Other Damage to the Exclusive Right to Use a Registered Trademark Article 1 of Several Explanations explains Item (5) of Article 52 of the Trademark Law, and provides three new acts of infringement on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Article 52 of the Trademark Law stipulates five cases of infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, of which item (5) belongs to the "bottom clause", that is, "causing other damage to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of others". Article 50 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law further stipulates Item (5) of Article 52 of the Trademark Law, and lists two situations: namely, on the same or similar goods, the marks that are the same as or similar to others' registered trademarks are used as commodity names or commodity decorations to mislead the public; Deliberately providing convenient conditions such as warehousing, transportation, mailing and concealment for infringing upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of others. 1. Significantly using the same or similar words as other people's registered trademarks as the company name on the same or similar goods is easy to mislead the relevant public. 2. Copying, imitating and translating well-known trademarks registered by others or their main parts, and using them as trademarks on different or similar goods, misleading the public. The interests of well-known trademark registrants may be harmed. 3. It is easy to mislead the relevant public by registering words that are the same as or similar to others' registered trademarks as domain names and conducting related commodity transactions through the domain names. 2. Protection of well-known trademarks In the Trademark Law before the revision, there were basically no provisions on the protection of well-known trademarks. In judicial practice, the protection of well-known trademarks has to be sought from the Paris Convention, which China promised to join. For a long time, the subject and method of identifying well-known trademarks have been controversial in intellectual property law and judicial practice departments. In addition to the controversy over the practice of issuing well-known trademarks in batches by administrative departments, there are different voices inside and outside the court about whether and how well-known trademarks can be recognized by the people's court. At the same time, improper speculation on well-known trademarks has painted some too sacred colors on well-known trademarks from another angle. The lack of legal provisions on well-known trademarks is in stark contrast to the excessive enthusiasm of society and public opinion for well-known trademarks. The recognition of well-known trademarks by people's courts has gradually emerged in the trial of computer network domain name disputes. (III) Identification of Trademark Infringement The most important link in the trial of trademark infringement disputes is the identification of trademark infringement. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law, the determination of trademark infringement mainly involves the definition of basic concepts or facts such as relevant public, trademark approximation and similar goods, as well as the principle of the people's court to determine trademark infringement. This is an urgent problem to be solved in current trial practice. Articles 8 to 12 of Several Explanations explain some basic concepts that have been used in practice for a long time but have not been clearly defined. To sum up, as long as you register a trademark, you can get legal protection, and the protected trademark can better protect your legitimate rights and interests. But if it is violated by others, you can use legal means to safeguard your own interests. Therefore, we must know how to use it before the law.

Legal basis:

1, Provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the Standards for People's Procuratorates to Directly Accept Investigation Cases II. Cases of Dereliction of Duty (1) Cases of Abuse of Power (Article 397) (2) The crime of abuse of power refers to the act of state functionaries exceeding their powers, illegally deciding or handling matters that they have no right to decide or handle, or handling official duties in violation of regulations, resulting in heavy losses to public property, the state and the people's interests. Anyone suspected of one of the following circumstances shall be placed on file: (1) Causing more than 1 person to die, or seriously injuring more than 2 people, or slightly injuring more than 5 people; (2) Causing direct economic losses of more than 200,000 yuan; (three) causing the relevant companies, enterprises and other units to stop production, serious losses, bankruptcy; (four) serious damage to the national reputation, or cause adverse social impact; (five) other circumstances that have caused great losses to public property, the interests of the state and the people; (six) favoritism, with one of the above circumstances. 1. This crime refers to the abuse of power by the staff of state organs, resulting in heavy losses to public property, the interests of the state and the people. Two, the subject of this crime can only be the staff of state organs. The subjective aspect of this crime is intentional. The objective aspect of this crime is abuse of power, which has caused great losses to public property, state and people's interests. Three, this crime is a new charge added to the criminal law. Four, according to the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation of the charges, "the crime of engaging in malpractices for selfish ends" has been cancelled and decomposed into various new charges. Paragraph 2 of this article is only regarded as an aggravating circumstance. 2. the Supreme People's Procuratorate 1997 and 12 Opinions on the Application of Crimes as stipulated in the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law have retained this crime. According to the Supreme People's Court's accusation system, there is no reservation. However, the Supreme People's Procuratorate's previous judicial interpretation of the crime of private consultation fraud is still useful for understanding this plot, so it is attached here, and the following charges will not be repeated here. In order to maintain the socialist legal system, promote strict law enforcement, punish corruption, and severely punish crimes of favoritism and malpractice according to law, according to the relevant provisions of the criminal law and other laws, some issues concerning the application of law in handling cases of favoritism and malpractice are explained as follows: 1. Judicial personnel, that is, those who are responsible for investigating, prosecuting, judging and supervising criminals according to law, covet money, protect relatives and friends, vent their anger and retaliate or have other selfish interests, and commit one of the following acts. Criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with the provisions of Article 188 of the Criminal Law: (1) To investigate (or take compulsory measures), prosecute or accuse a person who knows that he is innocent, that is, he has not committed an act that endangers society, or who is obviously minor in circumstances and does not bear criminal responsibility according to the provisions of the Criminal Law, by forging, concealing or destroying evidence or by other means that conceal facts or violate the law, with the aim of investigating (or taking compulsory measures) criminal responsibility. (2) Forging, concealing or destroying evidence, or taking other means to conceal facts or violate the law, deliberately shielding a person who knows that he is guilty, that is, he has conclusive facts to prove that he has committed a crime, so that he will not be investigated (together with compulsory measures), prosecuted or tried; Deliberately covering up the criminal facts of non-prosecution, which can be all criminal facts or part of criminal facts or circumstances; (3) Deliberately violating facts and laws in the trial of criminal cases, bending the law to make judgments and rulings, so that the guilty are acquitted, and the innocent are convicted, or the felony is lightly sentenced or the misdemeanor is severely sentenced; (4) intentionally violating the truth, illegally changing compulsory measures, or actually letting them go after taking compulsory measures, causing the perpetrator to evade criminal investigation; (5) commutation, parole or temporary execution outside prison of criminals in violation of the law; (six) in the trial of civil, economic, administrative and other cases, deliberately distorting the facts, violating the law, practicing favoritism, and perverting the law; (seven) professional and technical personnel of judicial organs deliberately provide false materials and opinions in handling cases, or deliberately make false appraisal, which seriously affects criminal procuratorial activities. (1) State functionaries outside the judiciary take advantage of their positions to cover up criminals such as smuggling, arbitrage, speculation, major theft, drug trafficking and bribery, and conceal or cover up their criminal facts; (2) State functionaries who are responsible for smuggling, arbitrage, speculation, major theft, drug trafficking, bribery and the circumstances specified in the preceding paragraph fail to deal with them according to law; (3) State functionaries responsible for banning prostitution and whoring provide convenience for criminals to escape punishment; (4) State functionaries, taking advantage of their positions, deliberately shield enterprises, institutions or individuals who know that they have committed the criminal acts listed in the Supplementary Provisions on Punishment of the Crime of Counterfeiting Registered Trademarks from prosecution; State functionaries who have been investigated for the crimes listed in the above supplementary provisions fail to perform their duties as prescribed by law, and shall be investigated for criminal responsibility by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 188 of the Criminal Law; (5) State functionaries, taking advantage of their positions, deliberately shield enterprises, institutions or individuals who knowingly commit the criminal acts listed in the Decision on Punishing the Crime of Producing and Selling Fake and Inferior Commodities; State functionaries who are responsible for the investigation of enterprises, institutions or individuals who have committed the crimes listed in this decision, and who fail to perform the investigation duties prescribed by law, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 188 of the Criminal Law; (six) the staff of the patent office and the relevant state personnel (such as patent management personnel) engage in malpractices for personal gain, and the circumstances are serious; (seven) other laws clearly stipulate that criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to or by analogy with the crime of bending the law for selfish ends. Three, for units or small collectives to seek illegitimate interests and the implementation of the first and second acts, the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible personnel shall be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law. Four, we must strictly grasp the conditions and circumstances of all kinds of acts of favoritism stipulated by law. To determine the criminal responsibility of a criminal who engages in malpractices for selfish ends according to law, we should comprehensively consider the losses caused by this act to the interests of the state, society and people, the losses caused to the life, personal and property rights and interests of the parties concerned, and the political impact. If the circumstances are obviously minor and the harm is not great, criminal responsibility shall not be investigated for the crime of bending the law for selfish ends. Misjudged cases caused by knowledge level and working ability should not be punished as the crime of bending the law for selfish ends. Because of the relationship between the superior and the subordinate, we have to carry out the wrong instructions from the superior, resulting in a wrong case. If there is no same intention and behavior of favoritism, criminal responsibility cannot be investigated for the crime of favoritism. Five, in collusion with judicial personnel or the law clearly stipulates that criminal responsibility should be investigated, in accordance with or mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 188 of the Criminal Law, in collusion with the implementation of the criminal acts listed in this interpretation, criminal responsibility shall be investigated for the crime of * * *. Six, for favoritism, bribery, torture and other acts constitute a crime, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility in accordance with the principle of combined punishment for several crimes. Seven, after the release of this interpretation, criminal cases of favoritism and malpractice shall be handled according to this interpretation. Cases that have been dealt with according to law before the release of this interpretation will not be changed.