There are two views on considering the validity of the trademark deposit agreement:

1. Trademark rights are civil rights. Whether there is a conflict between the applied trademark and the cited trademark is mainly In civil disputes involving private rights, the parties should be allowed to freely dispose of relevant rights and interests. If the parties reach a trademark deposit agreement, its validity should be determined and the application for trademark registration should be approved

2. Although trademark rights are private rights, the basic function of a trademark is to distinguish different sources of goods or services. If the validity of the trademark deposit agreement is recognized, it will lead to the existence of trademarks that are likely to confuse consumers in the market, thus harming the interests of consumers. Therefore, the validity of the trademark deposit agreement should not be recognized.

It can be said that these two views have their own truths. Our country's laws and judicial interpretations do not clearly stipulate the validity of trademark deposit agreements. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has also conducted careful research on the issue of deposit agreements in rejection review cases and believes that: Third Article of the Trademark Law The legislative purposes of the Ten Articles are twofold:

First, to protect previously registered or preliminarily approved trademarks and avoid conflicts of trademark rights;

Second, to protect the interests of consumers, that is, to prevent identical trademarks. Or similar trademarks appear in the market, causing confusion among relevant consumers.

Trademark rights are private rights. Whether there is a conflict between the applied trademark and the prior trademark is mainly a dispute over private rights and should be claimed by the parties through legal procedures. In rejection review cases, the applicant and the cited trademark owner When people reach a survival agreement, the conflict of rights between the parties has been eliminated. Moreover, the applicant and the owner of the cited trademark signed a deposit agreement, which indicates that the two parties will not "hitchhike" with each other when actually using the trademark, and it can be presumed that they have good faith to distinguish each other. Therefore, it is unreasonable to completely disregard the existence agreement between the parties. However, protecting the interests of consumers is one of the legislative purposes of Article 30 of the Trademark Law, and is also one of the legislative purposes of our country’s Trademark Law. Therefore, when deciding whether to allow the existence of trademarks, the overall quality of the trademarks of both parties should also be considered. Whether it can be distinguished by consumers, and whether it is easy to cause confusion among consumers.

Reference 1:/index.php?id=991