Hello, 1. If the use of the same or similar trademarks on similar goods constitutes infringement, the restriction must be "easy to cause confusion"

Under the new trademark law, whether the use of the same or similar trademarks on similar goods constitutes infringement must follow two steps: first, whether it constitutes the use of the same or similar trademarks on similar goods; Second, is it easy to cause confusion among relevant consumers?

if a trademark and a commodity are not the same but similar or similar, it does not necessarily constitute trademark infringement, and it is necessary to determine whether there is the possibility of confusion. Only when there are both similarity and confusion possibility can it constitute trademark infringement. If the trademark and the commodity are not the same, similar or similar, it is directly judged that it does not constitute trademark infringement, and it is no longer judged whether there is the possibility of confusion.

under the background of the new law, if the two commodities or markets are sufficiently separated, two or more enterprises can use the same logo or highly similar logo as trademarks at the same time. In this case, the trademarks of two commodities respectively associated with different consumer markets, even if they are highly similar, can go hand in hand without causing confusion. For example, although the trademarks of Hyundai Motor of Korea and Honda Motor of Japan used in automobile products are very similar in appearance, there is no infringement because both trademarks have formed a stable consumer group, and because the attention level of automobile consumers is high, there will be no confusion, and there is no improper damage to market interests between them.

2. The use of the same trademark on the same kind of goods is directly presumed to lead to confusion.

As mentioned above, the new trademark law especially incorporates the "possibility of confusion" that is common in the country into the criteria for judging trademark infringement. Then, why is there no provision for using the same trademark on the same kind of goods? The reason is that in this case, legislators directly assume that it will "lead to confusion", thus omitting the provisions. The EU Trademark Harmonization Directive points out in the preface 11: "The protection of registered trademarks is absolute when the same trademark is used in the same goods or services." In other words, the trademark infringement in this case does not take "confusion possibility" as a constituent element, but in essence provides an absolute protection for the trademark owner. Trademark right is an absolute right of control in essence, and the use of the same trademark on the approved goods or services belongs to the control scope of trademark exclusive right. Obviously, the same use behavior directly constitutes the infringement of trademark property rights. It is no longer important whether there is the possibility of confusion, because this is the core area of trademark rights, and it is completely reasonable and just to exclude the infringement of others in the core area of trademark rights.

if you can give detailed information, you can give a more detailed answer.