Does malicious preemptive registration of the same or similar trademark constitute infringement? Yes, it constitutes infringement! my country's Trademark Law stipulates that if a trademark is identical or similar to another person's registered trademark on similar or similar products, it cannot be registered. The trademark owner has the right to apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for a ruling within the statutory period to protect the exclusive right of his own trademark when he believes that another person's registered trademark (including applications for registration and already registered) is identical or similar to his own registered trademark. Protect your own legitimate interests. Similar trademarks refer to two trademarks that are similar in shape, pronunciation, and meaning of the text, or the composition and color of the graphics, or the overall structure of the text and graphics, which may easily confuse consumers as to the source of the goods or services. As far as word trademarks are concerned, it generally needs to be examined from three aspects: pronunciation, shape and meaning. Graphic trademarks are mainly based on appearance. Generally speaking, two trademarks can be judged to be similar if there is a similarity in the sound, shape, and meaning of a trademark. However, it needs to be used in combination and analyzed in detail based on the actual weight given to the three by the market. Therefore, in practice, determining whether trademarks are similar requires comprehensive consideration and comprehensive analysis. Principles and comparison methods for determining whether trademarks are identical or similar. Trademark infringement. What needs to be determined during the trial of a dispute case is whether the trademark of the product or service accused of infringement is identical or similar to the registered trademark of the registrant. The carrier of the registrant's registered trademark is its trademark registration certificate, so the content contained in the registered trademark is very clear and there will probably be no dispute. The carriers accused of trademark infringement are generally commodities, commodity packaging, transaction documents or promotional materials for goods or services, etc. In most cases, these carriers do not expressly indicate the content of their trademarks. Therefore, it becomes a question to compare what is on these carriers to register a trademark. In other words, the determination of the comparison object is the first problem that must be solved first. Although this issue can be clarified first by the party claiming rights, "but the judge should ultimately make a determination based on the specific circumstances." Logos composed of a combination of graphics should be used as a comparative pair. Specifically, these logos generally have the following situations: l. The alleged infringer has trademarked a certain logo, making it clear that it is a product or service trademark; The mark should undoubtedly be the object of comparison; 2. Although a certain mark has been marked as a trademark by the alleged infringer, it is used prominently on the product packaging, goods or service transaction documents or promotional materials. Already having the function of indicating the source of goods or services, this mark should be used as the object of comparison; 3. When multiple marks that respectively indicate the source of goods or services are used on the goods or services accused of infringement, the mark shall first be used according to the consumer or business Decompose these marks into multiple independent marks according to the reader's reading habits, and then compare these independent marks respectively; 4. In addition to the allegedly infringing mark on the goods or services accused of infringement, If there are other legally registered trademarks that are accused of infringement, the logo that is accused of infringement should be isolated and compared separately without being affected by the other legally registered trademark during the trial of the trademark infringement dispute case. The issue related to the determination of the comparison object is whether factors such as the packaging and decoration of the product need to be considered when determining whether there is a possibility of misunderstanding between the logo accused of infringement and the registered trademark of the registrant; the author does not think that because in addition to highlighting the In addition to the marks on goods, product packaging, and product communication materials, other visual aesthetics on the packaging and packaging of the goods have a role. However, if the source of the goods or services is identified as stated in the trademark registration certificate, the registrant is Therefore, it is first necessary to use the trademark prominently on the goods, product packaging, goods or service transaction documents or promotional materials. It is a scientific method to decompose the marks that indicate the source and function of goods or services, and then compare these marks with the registrant's registered trademark to determine whether the infringement is established.

As an identification mark of the source of goods or services, a trademark is composed of the entire trademark. What is left in the memory of consumers is the overall impression of the trademark, rather than some of the individual elements that constitute the trademark. On the other hand, a trademark as a whole always has the part that is most convenient for consumers to remember and can leave the deepest impression on consumers. It is the main part or important part of the trademark, that is, the part that plays the main role of identification in the trademark. part. The similarity of the trademark as a whole may cause misunderstanding by consumers, and the similarity of its parts that play the main role of identification may also cause misunderstanding by consumers. Therefore, while insisting on overall comparison, we should insist on comparing the main parts of the trademark. The two methods are dialectically unified. The decomposition relationship between the whole and each part has been discussed previously and will not be repeated here. Isolated comparison is a basic restoration comparison method. It should be used whether when comparing the whole or comparing parts. The basic meaning of isolation comparison is that when comparing two trademarks, there must be a certain distance between the two trademarks in terms of time and space. Do not place the two compared trademarks together for comparison. observe. The reason for insisting on the isolation and comparison method is that consumers always rely on the impression of a certain logo in their minds when purchasing goods or services. Therefore, the goods or services they are purchasing in the market are different from those in their minds. The retained impression of a certain logo is well-founded in time and space. Only by using the consumer's thinking mode and adopting the method of isolated observation and comparison can we more truly restore the consumer's experience in purchasing goods. or mental state at the time of service. (3) To determine whether a trademark is similar, the distinctiveness and popularity of the registered trademark requested for protection should be considered. A trademark should be distinctive. The distinctiveness of a trademark is also called the recognizability of the trademark, which means that the trademark should have the function of indicating the source of the goods or services. Trademarks with originality generally have high distinctiveness, but trademarks with high distinctiveness do not necessarily have originality. For registered trademarks with high distinctiveness, it is easier to determine whether two trademarks constitute similar trademarks, while for registered trademarks with weak distinctiveness, it is more difficult to determine whether two trademarks constitute similar trademarks. Registered trademarks with high reputations often become the targets of others' efforts to imitate. Therefore, the higher the reputation, the conditions for determining that two trademarks are similar should be appropriately lenient, otherwise the purpose of protecting well-known trademarks will not be achieved. Based on what has been said above, malicious pre-registration of other people’s trademarks is illegal. However, malicious pre-registration of similar trademarks is also against the provisions of the law. Pre-emptive registration of similar trademarks will also bring consequences to the trademark owner. Therefore, trademark rights holders also have the right to use legal means to protect their own interests.