Article 63 of the Trademark Law stipulates that the amount of compensation for infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the obligee due to infringement; If the actual loss is difficult to determine, it can be determined according to the interests obtained by the infringer due to infringement; If it is difficult to determine the loss of the obligee or the interests of the infringer, it shall be reasonably determined by referring to the multiple of the trademark license fee. For malicious infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark, if the circumstances are serious, the amount of compensation may be determined in accordance with the amount determined by the above method. The amount of compensation shall include the reasonable expenses paid by the obligee to stop the infringement. In order to determine the amount of compensation, the people's court may order the infringer to provide the account books and materials related to the infringement if the obligee has tried his best to provide evidence and the account books and materials related to the infringement are mainly held by the infringer; If the infringer fails to provide or provide false account books and materials, the people's court may determine the amount of compensation with reference to the claims of the obligee and the evidence provided. If it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee due to infringement, the interests gained by the infringer due to infringement, and the license fee for registered trademarks, the people's court shall award compensation of less than 5 million yuan according to the circumstances of the infringement. In handling trademark disputes, the people's court shall, except in special circumstances, order the destruction of goods with counterfeit registered trademarks at the request of the obligee; Materials and tools mainly used for manufacturing goods with counterfeit registered trademarks shall be ordered to be destroyed free of charge; Or under special circumstances, it shall be ordered to prohibit the aforementioned materials and tools from entering the commercial channels free of charge. Goods with counterfeit registered trademarks shall not enter commercial channels after only the counterfeit registered trademarks are removed. 1. Fees shall be paid when applying for trademark registration and handling other trademark matters. It is an international practice to require the parties to pay the fees when handling trademark matters. Because the trademark registration, management and review authorities need to pay a lot of costs when examining trademark registration applications or handling other trademark matters. In addition, it is stipulated that trademark matters should be paid, that is, the owner of the exclusive right to use a trademark is required to pay a certain fee when obtaining and protecting his exclusive right to use a trademark, which will help the registered owner of the exclusive right to use a trademark to more actively safeguard the quality and reputation of his goods and services and protect his exclusive right to use a trademark from infringement by others. Two, the specific charges for trademark matters shall be formulated separately. Because there are many links in trademark registration, management and audit, which businesses are more suitable for charging and how to formulate the charging standards are more complicated. In addition, the charging standard also needs to be adjusted with the change of the situation, so it is more appropriate not to make specific provisions in this law. Therefore, this article stipulates that the specific charging standards for applying for trademark registration and handling other trademark matters shall be stipulated separately. According to the current practice, the charging standards for applying for trademark registration and handling other trademark matters are jointly formulated by the State Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance, which mainly include the fees for accepting trademark registration, accepting registered trademark transfer, accepting trademark renewal registration, accepting trademark examination, issuing trademark certificates, trademark objection, trademark revocation and trademark licensing contract filing. According to different standards and different angles, trademarks can be divided into eight categories. 1, according to the composition of the trademark, it can be divided into word mark, graphic trademark and graphic trademark; 2, according to the use and function of trademarks, can be divided into commodity trademarks or service trademarks; 3. According to the difference of trademark owners and users, it can be divided into manufacturing trademarks, selling trademarks and collective trademarks; 4. According to the way of trademark management, it can be divided into registered trademarks and unregistered trademarks. 5. According to the motives of trademark users, it can be divided into joint trademarks, defensive trade mark and certification trademarks; 6. According to the meaning of trademarks, they can be divided into meaningful trademarks and meaningless trademarks; 7, according to the use of trademarks to classify, can be divided into main trademarks, sub-trademarks, commodity group trademarks, specific commodity trademarks; 8. According to the carrier classification of trademarks, they can be divided into plane trademarks, three-dimensional trademarks, sound trademarks and smell trademarks;

Legal objectivity:

Judging from the expression of this article, there are at least four relationships involving trademark infringement among the four elements of the same commodity, the same trademark, similar commodities and similar trademarks: using the same trademark on the same commodity without permission; Using similar trademarks on the same commodity without permission; Using the same trademark on similar goods without permission; Using similar trademarks on similar goods without permission. It should be noted that these four relationships are not typed trademark infringement, and the key to judge trademark infringement is 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" constitutes trademark infringement only if it is enough to cause confusion. At the same time, in the identification of "similar goods" and "similar goods", the Nice classification and differentiation table can be effectively used as an objective presumption basis: if the goods in the Nice classification and differentiation table belong to the same kind, they are presumed to constitute "similar goods" unless there is evidence to the contrary; If it belongs to similar goods in the Nice classification and 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 a trademark dispute are identified as "similar 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" and "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 cause 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" and "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 cause 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 superficiality, so as to seek advice from experts. In the "confusion" theory of trademark infringement, "confusion" refers to consumers' misunderstanding of the source of goods or services or related aspects. Article 1 1 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 [2002] No.32) defines "similar goods" as "goods with the same functions, uses, production departments, sales channels and consumers, or easily confused by the relevant public". Therefore, the viewpoint that "confusion" is the standard for identifying "similar trademarks" and "confusion is the basic principle for distinguishing" similar goods "has emerged, and many judgments in judicial practice support" confusion "as the standard for judging whether it constitutes" similar goods ". However, taking "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 the same. Some scholars try to solve this logical problem by distinguishing the confused objects. In their view, confusion when identifying "similar goods" refers to confusion in the source of production, and 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 take "similar goods" and "confusion" as factors to be considered when judging trademark infringement, and to make it clear that "confusion" is the standard for judging trademark infringement, not the standard for identifying "similar goods". In fact, "trademark similarity and commodity similarity are not a concept of yes or no, but a matter of degree." In the identification of "similar goods", if "similar" is a question of "yes" or "no", then 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 of trademark infringement, then what constitutes "similar goods" between commodities only increases the possibility of confusion, which does not absolutely lead to confusion or trademark infringement. Whether it constitutes trademark infringement ultimately depends on whether there is evidence of "actual confusion" or "confusion". In American judicial practice, 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 Trademark Registered Goods and Services (hereinafter referred to as Nice Classification Table) and the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services (hereinafter referred to as Classification Table) are "references" but not the basis for identifying "similar goods". Another meaning of "reference" is that in judicial proceedings, Nice Classification and Zoning Table can be used as objective criteria to infer the similarity of goods, that is, if the goods with trademarks involved belong to similar groups in Nice Classification and Zoning Table, it is presumed that they constitute similar goods unless there is other evidence to prove that the goods with trademarks involved are not similar goods. The value of clarifying this point in judicial procedure lies in: first, increasing the certainty and predictability of trademark infringement judgment and enhancing 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 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", judges need to judge many factors that affect the identification of "similar goods" one by one in the trial process. However, if the Nice classification discrimination table is used as an objective criterion to infer the similarity of commodity composition, the judge can directly infer it based on the Nice classification discrimination table without other evidence. Nice classification and discrimination table is regarded as the objective standard for inferring "similar goods", which denies the subjective standard for identifying "similar goods". 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 assistance or complementarity", "cooperation or support for use", "products and parts", "raw materials or tools" and "competition among commodities", which is a subjective standard 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 disputed goods, the greater the possibility of confusing consumers and the higher the probability of judging infringement. At the same time, the higher the similarity of disputed goods, the less evidence the plaintiff has for 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 disputed trademark. "Similar goods" is one of the factors that need to be considered in trademark infringement judgment, and the well-known degree of the disputed trademark is also one of the factors that need to be considered in trademark infringement judgment. There is no causal relationship between the two. The higher the well-known trademark, the greater the possibility of confusion among consumers, regardless of the similarity of disputed goods. It is not appropriate to use well-known trademarks to expand the scope of similar goods. In addition, China adopts cross-class protection for registered well-known trademarks. If we can expand the scope of "similar goods" according to the well-known degree of trademarks, then the cross-category protection of well-known trademarks is meaningless.