The value of clarifying this point in judicial proceedings is: first, it increases the certainty and predictability of trademark infringement judgments and enhances judicial credibility. If the judgment of "similar goods" relies entirely on subjective standards, different judges will have different perspectives, making the judgment of "similar goods" full of subjectivity, and "similar goods" is one of the important factors in determining trademark infringement. The subjectivity of the judgment of "similar goods" will increase the certainty and predictability of trademark infringement judgments, making judicial judgments of trademark infringement a "chameleon" in the eyes of the public, thereby affecting judicial credibility. Second, improve judicial efficiency. To rely entirely on subjective standards to identify "similar goods", the judge needs to judge one by one the many factors that affect the determination of "similar goods" during the trial process. However, if the Nice Classification and the "Schedule of Distinction" are regarded as the presumption that the goods constitute similar objective Standard, in the absence of other evidence, the judge can directly make an inference based on the Nice Classification and the "Schedule of Classification". Treat the Nice Classification and the "Schedule of Classification" as objective standards for presuming "similar goods" and deny the subjective standards for identifying "similar goods". On the contrary, the determination of "similar goods" ultimately depends on multi-faceted and comprehensive subjective standards. In our country's judicial practice, many judgments have focused on the "functional auxiliary or complementary nature", "the relationship between matching or supporting use", "the relationship between products and parts", "the relationship between raw materials or tools", "the relationship between commodities", "Competitive relationship between goods" and other aspects to determine "similar goods", these are subjective standards worth learning from. At the same time, the application of subjective standards for identifying "similar goods" can also refer to the following points: First, the higher the degree of similarity of the goods, the easier it is to cause confusion among consumers. The higher the similarity between the products in dispute, the greater the possibility of confusion among consumers, and the probability of determining that the infringement is established increases accordingly. At the same time, the higher the similarity between the goods in dispute, the plaintiff’s proof of other factors that affect the subjective judgment of “the possibility of causing consumer confusion” will be reduced accordingly. Secondly, the determination of “similar goods” itself should not take into account the well-known degree of the disputed trademark. "Similar goods" is one of the factors considered in the determination of trademark infringement, and the well-known degree of the trademark in dispute is also one of the factors considered in the determination of trademark infringement. The two factors simultaneously affect the determination of trademark infringement, and there is no causal relationship. The higher the fame of the disputed trademark, the greater the possibility of confusion among consumers. This has nothing to do with the similarity of the disputed goods. It is not appropriate to use the fame of the disputed trademark to expand the scope of similar goods. In addition, my country adopts cross-class protection for registered well-known trademarks. If the scope of "similar goods" can be expanded based on the popularity of the trademark, then cross-class protection of well-known trademarks will be meaningless.