Identification Of Similar Goods In Trademark Infringement Disputes

The identification of similar goods is an important part of the determination of infringement in trademark infringement disputes.There are different standards for the identification of similar goods among the identification subjects in China,which is the main problem that puzzles the identification of similar goods in practice and one of the uncertain factors in trademark infringement disputes.This paper is divided into three parts: introduction,body and conclusion.The main body is divided into three chapters.The first chapter is an overview of the theory of similar goods and the status quo of identification.The author believes that the identification of similar goods as a part of the judgment of trademark infringement should not be isolated from the legislative model of the judgment standard of trademark infringement,and its position and characteristics in the judgment of trademark infringement are limited by the legislative model.Therefore,in the first section of the first chapter of this paper,the author introduces the main legislative models of judging the standards of trademark infringement in the world,and also demonstrates the necessity of discussing the identification of similar goods by analyzing the status of similar goods in various legislative models.The identification of similar goods is not only necessary to determine trademark infringement in theory,but also urgent to explore in practice due to its existing problems.In the second section,the author introduces the current legislative status of identifying similar commodities in China,among which the socalled subjective and objective rules in the judicial interpretation in 2002 and the subjective and objective standards gradually developed in the application of practice are the two main standards in the current practice of identifying similar commodities.The divergence of which standard to adopt is the direct reason for the divergence of the current judicial determination of similar goods.The author quotes the official data released by the commercial judges and a large number of the latest judgment documents,and specifically explains the phenomenon that the current commercial judges,the courts and the internal courts have different standards for the determination of similar goods.The second chapter analyzes the specific problems existing in the practice of identified commodities.Based on the preliminary analysis,the author believes that there are three main reasons for the divergence of judicial determination results in the practice of identifying similar commodities in China: one is that there are defects in the objective standards,and there are different judicial determination results in the application of the objective standards;the other is that there are defects in the subjective standards,and there are different judicial determination results in the application of the subjective standards;the third is that there are differences in the application of the objective standards There are different opinions on the application of subjective and objective standards,which leads to different judicial results.For the first two aspects,the author analyzes in detail the application of objective and subjective standards in the practice of identifying similar commodities from the aspects of theoretical connotation,legal basis,theoretical application logic and practical application characteristics,and analyzes and summarizes the existing problems according to the latest judicial cases.As for the third aspect,the author believes that the understanding of the legal status of the distinction table is the direct reason for the differences in the positions of all parties.However,on the issue that the most prominent commercial judges and courts in China have different opinions on the applicable standards,the author believes that the fundamental reason lies in the difference in the value orientation of the administrative procedure and the judicial procedure.The third chapter is about the improvement and suggestions of identifying similar goods in China.The author’s overall thinking to solve the above problems is as follows: the root of the current debate on subjective and objective standards and the logical paradox in subjective standards lies in the current legislation mode of EU style trademark infringement determination.Under the current legislation mode,how to deal with the relationship between the possibility of confusion and the determination of similar goods cannot be solved,so the subjective and objective standards should be avoided On the other hand,we should pay attention to the practical characteristics and trends of identifying similar goods abroad,and reconstruct the rules of identifying similar goods in China.Specifically,in the first section,the author first analyzes that the essence of the differentiation table is only an administrative classification method in combination with the legislation overseas,and through the comparison of the legislation overseas,obtains the legislative characteristics of the process that it is generally excluded from the judicial recognition of similar goods,so the author suggests that China should explicitly deny the judicial recognition effect of the differentiation table in legislation.In the second section,the author analyzes the system of Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and tries to locate it.In combination with the quasi judicial system in the practice of overseas trademarks,the author believes that because the essence of the commercial review board,as a quasi judicial body,has the same procedural value as the court,its non traditional administrative organs should abandon the objective standards based on the distinction table It is suggested that when identifying similar commodities in the judicial sense of our country,the recognition standards of commercial judges and courts should be unified.In the third section,the author analyzes the standards that should be adopted by both parties in identifying similar goods.The author believes that the essence of the conflict between subjective and objective standards lies in whether the possibility of confusion should be considered in the identification of similar goods.However,the EU’s legislative model of "similarity standard + confusion possibility standard" fails to properly deal with the relationship between confusion possibility standard and commodity similarity,which makes the current debate between subjective and objective standards and the logical paradox in subjective standards bound to accompany Europe The legislation mode of alliance exists.Combined with the practical characteristics of identifying similar goods abroad,the author gives the solution: due to the specific national conditions of China at this stage,China will be in the EU style legislative mode for a long time,and does not have the conditions to draw lessons from the American style legislative mode of confusion possibility standard.Therefore,the author suggests that we should abandon the senseless debate rooted in the legislative mode and pay attention to the practice of identifying similar goods abroad practically Body rules,neither subjective standards,nor limited to objective standards,reconstruct the current recognition rules of similar goods.Through comparative study,this paper analyzes the theoretical and practical problems,and finally gives the author’s answer on how to identify similar goods in China’s practice.