Brief Introduction of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Applicable Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving the Protection of Well-known Trademarks: The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Applicable Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving the Protection of Well-known Trademarks, published by the Supreme People's Court, People's Republic of China (PRC), was adopted at the 1 467th meeting of the the Supreme People's Court Judicial Committee on April 22, 2009, and is hereby promulgated, and shall come into force on May12009. Detailed explanation on April 23, 2009: the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving the Protection of Well-known Trademarks (adopted at the1467th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on April 22, 2009) Law Interpretation [2009] No.3 Article 1 The well-known trademarks mentioned in this interpretation refer to trademarks widely known to the relevant public in China. Article 2 In the following civil dispute cases, the parties take well-known trademarks as the factual basis, and if the people's court deems it really necessary according to the specific circumstances of the case, it shall make a determination on whether the trademarks involved are well-known: (1) a trademark infringement lawsuit filed on the grounds of violating the provisions of Article 13 of the Trademark Law; (2) Trademark infringement or unfair competition lawsuit filed on the grounds that the enterprise name is the same as or similar to its well-known trademark; (three) the defense or counterclaim litigation as stipulated in Article 6 of this Interpretation. Article 3 In the following civil dispute cases, the people's court shall not examine whether the trademark involved is well-known: (1) The establishment of the alleged trademark infringement or unfair competition is not based on the fact that the trademark is well-known; (2) The alleged trademark infringement or unfair competition is not established because it does not meet other conditions prescribed by law. An infringement lawsuit filed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the domain name registered by the defendant is the same as or similar to its registered trademark, and the e-commerce of related goods through the domain name is enough to make the relevant public mistakenly think that it is handled in accordance with the provisions of Item (1) of the preceding paragraph. Article 4 When determining whether a trademark is well-known, the people's court shall comprehensively consider all the factors stipulated in Article 14 of the Trademark Law on the basis of the facts that prove it is well-known, except that it is sufficient to determine that a trademark is well-known without considering all the factors stipulated in this Article according to the specific circumstances of the case. Article 5 Where a party claims that a trademark is well-known, it shall, according to the specific circumstances of the case, provide the following evidence to prove that its trademark was well-known at the time of the alleged trademark infringement or unfair competition: (1) the market share, sales area, profits and taxes of the goods using the trademark; (2) the continuous use time of the trademark; (three) the way, duration, degree, capital investment and geographical scope of trademark publicity or promotion activities; (4) The record that the trademark is protected as a well-known trademark; (5) The market reputation enjoyed by the trademark; (6) Other facts that prove that the trademark is well-known. The time, scope and mode of use of the trademark mentioned in the preceding paragraph include the continuous use before the approval and registration. The people's court shall, in combination with other evidence to prove that the trademark is well-known, conduct an objective and comprehensive review of the trademark's service life, industry ranking, market survey report, market value evaluation report, and whether it is recognized as a well-known trademark. Article 6 The plaintiff brings a civil lawsuit on the grounds that the use of the sued trademark infringes the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. If the defendant raises a defense or counterclaim on the grounds that the plaintiff's registered trademark has been copied, imitated or translated, he shall bear the burden of proof for the fact that his unregistered trademark is well-known. Article 7 Where a trademark accused of trademark infringement or unfair competition has been recognized as well-known by the people's court or the administrative department for industry and commerce of the State Council before the act occurs, and the defendant has no objection to this fact, the people's court shall recognize it. If the defendant raises an objection, the plaintiff shall still bear the burden of proof for the fact that the trademark is well-known. Except as otherwise provided in this Interpretation, the people's court does not apply the admissibility rules of evidence in civil proceedings to the fact that a trademark is well-known. Article 8 If the plaintiff provides basic evidence of a well-known trademark in China, or the defendant has no objection, the people's court shall determine the fact that the trademark is well-known. Article 9 It is "easy to cause confusion" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law if it is enough to make the relevant public misunderstand the source of the goods using the well-known trademark and the sued trademark, or make the relevant public think that there is a specific connection between the operator using the well-known trademark and the sued trademark, such as the use license and the relationship between affiliated enterprises. It is enough to make the relevant public think that the sued trademark has a considerable degree of connection with the well-known trademark, but it weakens the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, devalues its market reputation, or improperly uses its market reputation, which belongs to "misleading the public and causing damage to the interests of the well-known trademark registrant" as stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law. Article 10 If the plaintiff requests to prohibit the defendant from using the same or similar trademark or enterprise name as the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark on dissimilar goods, the people's court shall make a judgment after comprehensively considering the following factors according to the specific circumstances of the case: (1) the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark; (two) the well-known trademark is known to the relevant public on the goods using the accused trademark or enterprise name; (3) the degree of correlation between the goods using the well-known trademark and the goods using the sued trademark or enterprise name; (4) Other relevant factors. Article 11 If the registered trademark used by the defendant violates the provisions of Article 13 of the Trademark Law and plagiarizes, imitates or translates the plaintiff's well-known trademark, which constitutes infringement of the trademark right, the people's court shall, at the request of the plaintiff, make a judgment prohibiting the defendant from using the trademark according to law, but the people's court shall not support the defendant's registered trademark in any of the following circumstances: (1) It has exceeded the provisions of Article 41 of the Trademark Law.