Research On Revocation System Of Three Years Non-use Of Registered Trademark

August30,2013, The Fourth Meeting of the Twelfth National People’s CongressStanding Committee voted to adopt a Decision on Amending "People’s Republic ofChina Trademark Law". From May1,2014effective "Trademark Law"(hereinafterreferred to as the new "Trademark Law"). Trademark revocation system hassignificant changes. For example, a clear distinction between revoked trademark andinvalid trademark, trademark has become the common name in the trade goods orservices may be revoked and the improvement in revocation process enrich thetrademark law. However, revocation system of trademark for3years non-use need tobe further implemented, in the case of the existing law does not specify. interpretationof the court and "Trademark Trial and trial standards" vary, resulting in a judicialconfusion, weakens the credibility of state organs. Revocation system of three yearsnon-use of registered trademark is an important topic to probe. After this research, author also provide a perfect solution.The research start from China revocation system of three years non-use ofregistered trademark, including the new "Trademark Law"," ImplementingRegulations of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China," judicialinterpretation, and the classic case of "trademark examination and trial standards" asthe main object of study, refer to the latest "trademark Law Implementing Regulations(Amendment Bill) manuscript" and the previous "trademark Law" revised, drawingon Hong Kong trademark system, from the "Hong Kong Trade Marks Ordinance,"under the "Hong Kong Trade Marks Rules," and the Hong Kong Trade MarksRegistry issued revocation cases, thereby explicitly revocation system standard. Thispaper is divided into four chapters:The first chapter. Analyzes the current situation revocation system of three yearsnon-use of registered trademark. From the provisions of2013"Trademark Law",compare trademark invalid and revocation system, introduce the concept and theconsequences of revocation system. There are some problems of revocation system ofthree years non-use need to be solved. For example, the law is not specific enoughand the judge relied on the form of use and ignore the intended use. Summarizes theHong Kong revocation system of three years non-use of registered trademark.The second chapter. Firstly, explain the difference between the use ofinfringement and the use of revocation, indicate that legislation should focus on theirdifferent characteristics. Secondly, from the "Hong Kong Trade Marks Ordinance"and related cases, compared with the Chinese New "Trademark Law" and the case,Illustrate that the intended use should become a part of value judgment. Again,re-evaluation the form of use of trademark. Study from Hong Kong trademark system.Determine what kind of use should belongs on the use of trademark law.The third chapter is to explore the provision of revocation system of3years non-use, including to clear the no valid reason for non-use. Analysis of the new"Trademark Law" Article64, to bring out the importance of trademark rightstermination date calculation method, and solve the problem of non-use andcompensate of tort. Research the reuse of trademark. Analysis the proceeding andsubmit evidence of trademark revocation system.The fourth chapter is the legislative proposals of revocation system of three yearsnon-use of registered trademark. Through the above analysis, writer made a numberof specific legislative proposals. Including a complement of legislation of intendeduse and the form of use. Another complement of no valid reason for non-usetrademark. Also a improvement of the legislation of reuse trademark and to perfect thehearing issue of trademark revocation system.