When the court determines reverse confusion of a trademark, the factors that the court usually considers mainly include the following aspects:

1. Whether there is a legal prior trademark right. According to the existing provisions of the Trademark Law, the object of trademark protection in my country is the trademark registration acquisition system, so unregistered prior trademarks cannot become the object of protection for reverse trademark confusion.

2. Whether the prior trademark is distinctive. The stronger the inherent distinctiveness of the prior trademark, the greater the possibility of being recognized as reverse confusion. If the prior trademark is less distinctive due to improper use, or even becomes a common name, the possibility of being recognized as reverse confusion is greater. The sexiness will be reduced, and it may even become a fair use of the trademark.

3. Whether the prior trademark is actually used. The purpose of trademark registration is for use, and its essence is to distinguish the source of goods/services. If a trademark is registered but not used, it will not only cause a waste of trademark resources, but also easily disrupt the normal market economic order. Therefore, if the previous trademark is not actually used after registration, the possibility of being recognized as reverse confusion will be reduced.

4. Whether the infringer’s behavior is trademark use. Trademark use refers to the use of trademarks for business activities, including the use of trademarks for product packaging, decoration, transaction documents, exhibitions, etc. If the trademark is used for non-business activities, it currently mainly refers to the use of trademarks for news reviews, trademarks, etc. Parodies, use in dictionaries and other reference books will not be considered trademark reverse confusion infringement.

5. How similar the trademark is. The degree of similarity between trademarks is directly proportional. That is, the more similar the trademarks are, the greater the possibility of confusion among consumers. On the contrary, if the trademarks are significantly different, the possibility of reverse confusion will be reduced.

6. Are the products similar? Most of the products (services) found to be reverse obfuscation are the same or similar. For the determination of similarity, similarity in nature, function and substitutability should also be the criteria for judging similar goods

7. The commercial distinctiveness of subsequent trademarks. The consumer group of the earlier trademark is smaller than the consumer group of users of the later trademark. The stronger the commercial distinctiveness of the later trademark, the greater the possibility of consumer confusion. When determining reverse trademark confusion, emphasis should be placed on examining the confusion among consumer groups with a later trademark, rather than focusing solely on the possibility of confusion among consumer groups with an earlier trademark.

8. Consumer attention. Generally, consumers will pay more attention to products or services of high value, while consumers will pay less attention to products or services of smaller value. Consumer attention is directly proportional to the likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the greater the value of a product, the likelihood of confusion will decrease, and the smaller the value of a product, the likelihood of confusion will increase. In addition, subjective factors such as consumers’ education level, consumption concepts, and consumption habits will also affect the confusion judgment of trademarks.

9. Is there any actual confusion? Actual confusion usually includes consumers’ misidentification complaints, wrong consultations, quality supervision departments’ misidentifications, and industrial and commercial departments’ misidentification penalties, etc. A trademark is a sign that distinguishes the source of goods or services. As long as there is a possibility of confusion, it may constitute trademark infringement. Actual confusion is one of the reference evidences in US trademark infringement cases. Without actual confusion, it is difficult to determine the existence of trademark infringement