there is a legal basis for b's complaint against a. However, A may bite back. Of course, the possibility of this bite back should be analyzed according to the specific situation. Because the two trademarks are similar, it can be seen from the composition that one is only a percent less than the other, which can be at least 5% similar in any case. Therefore, B is suspected of malicious cybersquatting. However, it depends on the extent to which A's trademark is used and B's trademark is developed. It is divided into the following situations: First, the trademarks of Party A and Party B start to be used almost together in time. If Party B registers first, it can complain about Party A without scruple. Second, A's trademark has no influence at all, while B's trademark is louder. At this time, B has a better chance of winning a complaint. Third, A not only uses the trademark first, but also has a better effect, while B registers first, although B enjoys the exclusive right to use the trademark. However, there is a great possibility of malicious cybersquatting by B. Therefore, it is possible to lose the complaint at this time, and the possibility of losing the case at this time will be great.