This article is a provision on infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, also known as trademark infringement, refers to all acts that damage the rights and interests of others' registered trademarks. Judging whether an act constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark mainly depends on whether it has four elements: first, the objective existence of damage facts; The second is the illegality of the behavior; Third, the fact of damage is caused by illegal acts; The fourth is the intention or negligence of the behavior. When the above four requirements are met at the same time, it constitutes trademark infringement. The acts of infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as stipulated in this article mainly include the following categories: 1. The act of using a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on the same or similar goods without the permission of the trademark registrant. This is the most obvious and the most common trademark infringement in judicial practice. Without the permission of the trademark registrant, it refers to the act of using a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on the same or similar goods without going through the licensing procedures in accordance with Article 4 of this Law. Its specific manifestations are as follows: first, using the same trademark as the registered trademark of others on the same commodity; The second is to use a trademark similar to the registered trademark of others on the same commodity; The third is to use the same trademark as the registered trademark of others on similar goods; The fourth is to use trademarks similar to others' registered trademarks on similar goods. This kind of behavior, whether intentional or negligent, will lead to the confusion of the source of goods, make consumers mistake and buy goods by mistake, thus damaging the legitimate rights and interests of trademark registrants and consumers, so it is a typical trademark infringement. Trademark registrants have the right to stop this illegal use, and the law must explicitly prohibit this kind of infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, and investigate the legal responsibility of the offenders according to law. 2. Selling goods that infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. This is a trademark infringement in the circulation of commodities. Usually, goods that infringe on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark can not reach consumers unless they are sold by the producers themselves, but also through the sales activities of others. Sellers like this, like producers of goods that infringe on the exclusive right to use registered trademarks, have played a role in confusing the source of goods, infringing on the exclusive right to use registered trademarks and harming the interests of consumers. Therefore, this kind of sales should also be regarded as an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, and should also be treated as trademark infringement, so that it can bear corresponding legal responsibilities. It should be noted that the producers of goods infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark are generally intentional, but the sellers of goods infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark may or may not be intentional. Therefore, the third paragraph of Article 56 of this Law clearly stipulates that if you sell a commodity that you don't know is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, you can prove that the commodity was legally obtained by yourself and explain the supplier, and you will not be liable for compensation. From this, it can be seen that the sale of goods that are not known to infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark can prove that the goods were legally obtained by itself and explain the supplier, so it is impossible to pursue its legal responsibility according to trademark infringement, so it should not be liable for compensation. 3. The act of forging or making a registered trademark logo of others without authorization or selling a forged or made registered trademark logo without authorization. The so-called "forgery" refers to making the same trademark logo as the registered trademark logo by imitating the pattern and material entity of the registered trademark of others without the permission of others; The so-called "unauthorized manufacturing" mainly refers to the act of printing a trademark logo without the permission of others in addition to the number of prints stipulated in the trademark printing contract. Forgery and unauthorized manufacturing have the same feature, that is, they are all acts without the permission of the trademark registrant. The difference is that the former trademark logo itself is false, while the latter trademark logo itself is true. The act of selling forged or unauthorized registered trademark marks refers to buying and selling such trademark marks, including both wholesale and retail, both internal sales and market sales. Trademark identification is an important form of trademark use. The purpose of forging or making others' registered trademarks without authorization is to use them on the same kind of goods or similar goods produced or sold by themselves or others, so as to make the fake genuine and the inferior good; The purpose of selling forged or unauthorized registered trademarks is to obtain illegal benefits. Because this kind of behavior disturbs the order of market economy, infringes on the exclusive right of trademark registrant and harms the interests of consumers, it has serious consequences and great harm. Therefore, we must take effective measures to severely crack down and investigate the legal responsibility of offenders according to law. 4. Without the consent of the trademark registrant, the act of changing its registered trademark and putting the goods with the changed trademark on the market again. This is a new provision in the revision of the Trademark Law. Some foreign legislative cases call it "reverse counterfeiting" and prohibit and sanction it. The so-called "reverse counterfeiting" refers to the act of removing the trademark legally attached by others to the commodity in the commodity sales activities, replacing it with one's own trademark and pretending to sell it as one's own commodity. In the process of China's transition to a market economy, there has been a phenomenon of removing the registered trademark used in goods without the consent of the trademark registrant and putting it into the market for sale after replacing it with its own trademark. This kind of behavior violates consumers' right to know, makes consumers misunderstand the source of goods, producers and suppliers, and also hinders the effective function of registered trademarks and the trademark registrant's striving for famous brands. Therefore, it should be considered as an act of infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks. In order to benefit the healthy development of the socialist market economy and protect the exclusive right of trademark registrants, it is necessary to expressly increase the prohibition of such infringement in this law. 5. Acts that cause other damage to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of others. This is a general provision. Acts that cause other damages to others' exclusive right to use a registered trademark mainly refer to other acts that damage others' exclusive right to use a registered trademark except the first four items of this article. For example, the corporate logo or its main part constitutes a copy, imitation, translation or transliteration of a well-known trademark, which may imply that there is some connection between the enterprise using the corporate logo and the well-known trademark registrant, which may damage the interests of the well-known trademark registrant, or improperly use or weaken the distinctive features of the well-known trademark. The domain name or the main part of the domain name constitutes a copy, imitation, translation or transliteration of a well-known trademark, and the domain name is maliciously registered or used; On the same or similar goods, the words and graphics that are identical or similar to the registered trademarks of others are used as commodity names or commodity decorations, which is enough to cause misunderstanding; Deliberately providing convenient conditions such as warehousing, transportation, mailing, concealment, etc. for infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks of others. Although these acts have various forms of expression, they will all cause damage to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, so they are also violations of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, and offenders should bear corresponding legal responsibilities according to law. (Source: Dezhou Government Network) Legal objectivity:

From the expression of this article, there are at least four relationships involving trademark infringement among the four elements of the same kind of goods, the same trademark, similar goods and similar trademarks: the same trademark is applied to the same kind of goods without permission; Applying similar trademarks to the same kind of goods without permission; Applying the same trademark to similar goods without permission; Applying similar trademarks to similar goods without permission. It should be noted that these four relationships are not typed trademark infringement, and the key to judging trademark infringement still lies in whether it constitutes "confusion" or "confusion". Therefore, the correct logic of applying Article 57 of the Trademark Law is that "using the same trademark on the same commodity" without permission is presumed to be enough to cause confusion and constitute infringement, unless there is evidence to the contrary; Using the same or similar trademarks on similar goods without permission does not necessarily lead to confusion; Without permission, "using the same or similar trademarks on similar goods" will only constitute trademark infringement if it is enough to cause confusion. At the same time, in the identification of "the same kind of goods" and "similar goods", the Nice Classification and the Distinguishing Table can be effectively used as the objective presumption basis: those belonging to the same kind of goods in the Nice Classification and the Distinguishing Table are presumed to constitute "the same kind of goods", unless there is evidence to the contrary; If it belongs to similar goods in the Nice Classification and the Classification Table, it is presumed to constitute "similar goods", unless there is evidence to the contrary; Contrary evidence refers to the evidence that the goods involved in the trademark dispute are identified as "the same kind of goods" or "similar goods" because of their functions, uses, production departments, sales channels, consumers, competition or substitution. Article 57 of China's Trademark Law stipulates that "using a trademark identical to its registered trademark on the same commodity without the permission of the trademark registrant", "using a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same commodity, or using a trademark identical to or similar to its registered trademark on similar commodities is likely to lead to confusion", which constitutes trademark infringement. Article 57 of China's Trademark Law stipulates that "using a trademark identical to its registered trademark on the same commodity without the permission of the trademark registrant", "using a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same commodity, or using a trademark identical to or similar to its registered trademark on similar commodities is likely to lead to confusion", which constitutes trademark infringement. Among them, there is always a logical problem between the identification of "similar goods" and the "confusion" theory of trademark infringement. This paper discusses the correct logic of identifying "similar goods" (including services) without being superficial, in order to seek advice from the experts. In the "confusion" theory of trademark infringement, "confusion" refers to consumers' wrong understanding of the source or related aspects of goods or services. Article 11 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes (Fa Shi [22] No.32) defines "similar goods" as "goods with the same functions, uses, production departments, sales channels, consumers, etc., or the relevant public generally thinks that they have specific connections and are easy to cause confusion", so "confusion" appears as "similar trademarks" However, using "confusion" as the identification standard of "similar goods" has serious logical circulation and causal inversion problems: the identification of confusion depends on whether the goods or services are similar; Confusion is also a criterion to measure whether goods or services are similar. Some scholars try to solve this logical problem by distinguishing the objects of confusion. They think that "confusion" when identifying "similar goods" refers to confusion in the source of production, while "confusion" when identifying trademark infringement refers to confusion in the use value of goods ",but the problem is that" confusion in the source of production "and" confusion in the use value of goods "are sometimes difficult to distinguish, and only in the source of production. To solve the above logical problems, the key is to regard "similar goods" and "confusion" as factors to be considered when judging trademark infringement, and to make it clear that "confusion" is the criterion for judging trademark infringement, not the criterion for identifying "similar goods". In fact, "trademark similarity and commodity similarity are not a concept of yes or no, but a question of degree." In the identification of "similar goods", if "similarity" is a question of "yes" or "no", the judgment from "similar goods" to trademark infringement is an objective and typed question, that is, as long as there is an act of using the same or similar trademarks on similar goods without permission, it constitutes infringement. If "similar goods" is only one of the elements to determine trademark infringement, what constitutes "similar goods" between commodities only aggravates the possibility of confusion, which does not absolutely lead to confusion, nor does it necessarily lead to trademark infringement. Whether it constitutes trademark infringement ultimately depends on whether there is evidence to prove that there is "actual confusion" or "confusion". In the judicial practice of the United States, many cases regard "confusion" as trademark infringement rather than "similar goods". According to Article 12 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes, the International Classification Table of Goods and Services for Trademark Registration (hereinafter referred to as Nice Classification) and the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services (hereinafter referred to as Classification Table) are "references" for identifying "similar goods", but not the basis. Another meaning of "reference" is that in judicial proceedings, the Nice Classification and the Division Table can be regarded as objective standards to infer the similarity of goods, that is, if the goods involved in the trademark in dispute belong to similar groups in the Nice Classification and the Division Table, they are presumed to constitute similar goods, unless there is other evidence to prove that the goods involved in the trademark in dispute are not similar goods. The value of clarifying this point in judicial procedure is: first, to increase the certainty and predictability of trademark infringement judgment and enhance judicial credibility. If the judgment of "similar goods" depends entirely on subjective criteria, different judges will have different perspectives, which makes the judgment of "similar goods" full of subjectivity, and "similar goods" is one of the important factors to identify trademark infringement. The subjectivity of "similar goods" judgment will increase the certainty and predictability of trademark infringement judgment, make the judicial judgment of trademark infringement become a "chameleon" in the eyes of the public, and then affect the judicial credibility. Second, improve judicial efficiency. If we completely rely on subjective criteria to identify "similar goods", the judge needs to judge many factors that affect the identification of "similar goods" one by one in the trial process. However, if Nice Classification and Discrimination Table are regarded as objective criteria to infer that goods constitute similarity, the judge can directly make a presumption based on Nice Classification and Discrimination Table without other evidence. The Nice Classification and the Distinguishing Table are regarded as the objective criteria for the presumption of "similar goods" and the subjective criteria for the identification of "similar goods" are denied. On the contrary, the identification of "similar goods" ultimately depends on various and comprehensive subjective standards. In China's judicial practice, many judgments have identified "similar commodities" from the aspects of "functional auxiliary or complementary", "matching or supporting use", "product and parts", "raw materials or tools" and "competition between commodities", which are subjective standards worth learning. At the same time, the application of the subjective standard of "similar goods" can also refer to the following points: First, the higher the similarity of goods, the more likely it is to cause confusion among consumers. The higher the similarity of the goods in dispute, the greater the possibility of confusing consumers, and the higher the probability of judging the infringement. At the same time, the higher the similarity of the goods in dispute, the less the plaintiff's proof of other factors that affect the subjective judgment of "the possibility of confusing consumers". Second, the identification of "similar goods" itself should not consider the well-known degree of the trademark in dispute. "Similar goods" is one of the factors to be considered in trademark infringement judgment, and the well-known degree of the trademark in dispute is also one of the factors to be considered in trademark infringement judgment. There is no causal relationship between them. The higher the well-known trademark, the greater the possibility of confusion among consumers, which has nothing to do with the similarity of the disputed goods. It is not appropriate to expand the scope of similar goods by the well-known trademark. In addition, China adopts cross-class protection for registered well-known trademarks. If the scope of "similar goods" can be expanded according to the well-known degree of trademarks, then the cross-class protection of well-known trademarks is meaningless.