Legal analysis: Determination of malicious registration of trademarks

The above-mentioned provisions of my country’s Trademark Law prohibiting malicious registration reflect the same legislative purpose, which is to maintain good faith principles to prevent unfair competition. Taking trademark review cases as an example, if the applicant can prove that the respondent's application to register the disputed trademark violated the principle of good faith, it can be determined that the subjective intent constitutes bad faith. Malice is the only requirement for identifying malicious squatting and applying the above-mentioned legal provisions. The determination of bad faith mainly considers but is not limited to the following factors:

1. The applicant knew or should have known that the respondent knew or should have known about the respondent due to the existence of agency or representative, trade, cooperation, geography (region) or other relationships with the respondent. 's trademark.

2. The respondent knew or should have known about the existence of other people’s prior rights due to the popularity of the trade name, work, design, name, portrait, etc. that he applied for to enjoy prior rights or other factors.

3. If the applicant claims that the respondent has maliciously registered its trademark, the originality of the applicant’s trademark needs to be considered.

4. The respondent knew or should have known the existence of the names of tourist attractions and origins as public resources because they were well-known.

5. After the disputed trademark was registered, the respondent used it to obtain illegitimate benefits, hinder the legitimate use of others, demand high transfer fees, licensing fees, infringement compensation from others, or mislead the public. Propaganda, causing market confusion.

Legal basis: "Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China" Article 13 Applicable requirements for the protection of well-known trademarks

1. Paragraph 1 protects well-known unregistered trademarks.

(1) The applicant’s trademark is well-known but has not yet been registered in China (2) The disputed copy, imitation or translation of the well-known trademark (3) The goods of both parties are identical or similar goods (4) The use of the disputed trademark Can easily lead to confusion.

2. The second paragraph protects well-known registered trademarks.

(1) The applicant’s trademark is well-known and registered in China (2) The disputed trademark constitutes a copy, imitation or translation of the well-known trademark (3) The goods using the trademarks of both parties are not identical or similar goods (4 ) The use of the disputed trademark misleads the public and harms the interests of the well-known trademark owners.