Discussion On Several Difficult Questions Of Judicial Determination Of Counterfeiting Registered Trademark Crime

With further development of economy globalization, Intellectual property has increasingly become the strategic resource of national development and international competitiveness of core essential factor, which plays a more and more important role in promoting a country’s economic prosperity, wealth growth, progress of science and technology. It is precisely because the Intellectual property rights will makes a richer and stronger nation, So in the way to build an innovation-oriented country, We must pay great attention to take a variety of legal protection to protect intellectual property. During 2004 to 2011, The supreme people’s court has issued three judicial interpretation, which is touch upon intellectual property crime. Promulgation of the judicial interpretation so often, On the one hand, it embody the decision and volition of government to fight against the intellectual property crime, On the other hand, it also reveals the diversity and complexity of intellectual property crime.According to the findings, Counterfeiting registered trademark Cases accounted for 69.2% in the criminal cases of infringing intellectual property. The promulgation of judicial explanation, though in a certain extent, ease the problem of difficulty in judicial practice, but there are still many disputed parts need to be addressed. So, the author analyzes this crime in theory or application problems deeply and proposes own views and suggestions, hoping to perfect the crime and doing some favor to the juridical practice.This article is divided into three parts. The first part discussed the problem judicial cognizance of “Identical kind of goods”. It demonstrated the essential difference between “similar products” and “Identical kind of goods”. As the Standards of the same commodity, the author approval the idea that the Determination of a commodity standard ought to be “trademark registered by the international classification table of commodities and services”, but the criteria were further divided.The second chapter focuses on the “use” of the judicial cognizance issues. The offender was convicted Only when the perpetrator’s “use” belongs to the sense of the use of trademark. If the behavior of the actor cannot cause a public mistake, he should be released for good. For the behavior beyond the authorized scope, the author thinks that it should be respectively discuss whether the defendants’ acts constitute crime.The third part is mainly the problems about the judicial cognizance of “The same trademark”、“two kinds of trademark”. This chapter mainly discusses whether the trademark is basically the same should focus on the mistake caused by the relevant public. As to the standards of judgement of “Two or more trademarks”, the author take for the viewpoint that there were two aspects: Whether the same holder; Whether attached to the same items. If it meets the two points, it should be recognized to one trademark.