The Practical Identification Of Article 10 Of The Trademark Law “Other Adverse Effects”

"Other adverse effects" is a term of the existing Trademark Law Article 10,paragraph 1(8),which refers to the logo harmful to the socialist ethics or have other adverse effects shall not be used as a trademark.Because there is a big controversy of the term in practice,this article aims to form rational and applicable suggestions through multi-angle analysis.This article is divided into three sections,the introduction part explores the specific application of the term and the existing problems.Based on the discussion,the first chapter discuss the specific connotation following the principle of public order and social customs from the legislative value orientation analysis,to clarify the stability of the consumer does not constitute a direct protection of the provisions of the public interest,only as indirect effects when one sign be regulated as bringing"Other adverse effects".and then consolidate the legislative understanding of the term through the analysis of its basis and meanings.In the second chapter,the legal interpretation of the term is systematically analyzed.Especially Analyzes the connotation and extension of "other adverse effects",clarifies the scope of its radiation,sums up the legal characteristics of such relations,and makes a distinction between the violation of others' rights and malicious registrations,which are more likely to cause confusion in practice.And then specifically listed whether there will be other adverse effects of the perspective of the judgments,not only considerate the elements of the signs,but also with the goods or services,the main application of the trademark and its subjective state,in determining the specific public can Resulting in adverse effects,as well as the type and extent of the adverse effects of a comprehensive judgment,which can fully reason and proof weather the trademark having other adverse effects.In the third chapter,on the basis of the above discussion,the author analyzes the"other adverse effects" of the WeChat trademark,and points out that it does not have the characteristic,the consumer's consumption order is not a direct protection of the terms of the clause.In the "Jordan case",to clarify the registration of other people's names as different contents to consider,the Article thirty-second proof of the least difficult and most vulnerable to protection;Article 44 only applies to large-scale cybersquatting behavior;Article 10,paragraph 1(7)is the most difficult for proving the well-known and the adverse effects of the name,it can be regarded as the the bottom of the regulation of such a situation.In the form of case analysis,it is concluded that in the specific application,the principle of prudence and the consistency of the trial should be followed,but the one-sided understanding of the case should be avoided and the clause should be applied accurately.