Research On Similar Trademark Judgement

Trademarks are used to be identify the source of goods and service, and areof significant value for modern enterprise. For this reason, many people choose tocopy others’ trademarks that have highly reputation, use them in respect of the sameor similar goods. It not only infringes the legitimate interests of trademarks, but alsodoes damage to the fair competition order of normal market, deceive the consumers.Although the Trademark Law clearly states that using the same or similar trademarkin respect of the same or similar goods without authorization of the proprietor of theregistered trademarks is an infringement act, the law does not definite the meaning ofsimilar trademarks. The supreme court issued judicial explanation on how to identifysimilar trademark, but the similar trademark cases are always have their complexityand concreteness which determines affirming the similar trademark can never easy.This paper will be divided into four parts:The first part introduced the basic case and focus of controversy. CrocodileInternational Corporation and Lactose Corporation have registered their owntrademarks which contain crocodile graphics and associated marks in most places ofthe world. The two companies have the similar business scope that lead to commercialdisputes, and finally they sign the package agreements which aiming at solving thematter of their products coexisting in an area. Behind this background, the Lactosecorporation charge the Crocodile international corporation because of its infringementact it uses crocodile mark on its’ product. The focus controversy of this case is that ifthe charged marks have enough similarities which may confuse consumers.The second part is the theoretical analysis for similar trademarks principle.There are mainly three aspects, one is about the definition of the concept of relevantpublic and general attention, secondly we talk about comparison principle during theprocess of judgment of similar trademark, last we analysis the importance ofdistinctive character trademark to the judgment of similar trademark.The third part mainly analysis the essence of similar trademark in Trademarklaw, according to main theory related to similar trademark, the judgment of similar trademark should follow the likelihood of confusion principle. Only the appearancehas similarities is not enough, this kind similarities make public confused is needed.The fourth part mostly analyses the case, through this case w can learn thatthe important function of the principle of judgment of similar trademark. We can alsorealize that only the appearance of trademarks have similarities is not enough, eventhough these similarities lead to public’s confusion to some extent, infringementcannot be judged because of their each special development history and currentsituation of their coexistenceThe fifth part makes a conclusion of this paper.