Research On The Confirmation Of The Effectiveness Of Trademark Coexistence Agreement

In the trademark authorization procedure,according to the provisions of Article 30 of the Trademark Law of People’s Republic of China(PRC),if the trademark applied for later on the same or similar goods is the same as or similar to the trademark registered earlier,the Trademark Office shall reject the trademark application.At present,more and more operators obtain trademark registration or resolve trademark infringement disputes through trademark coexistence agreements.When a trademark applicant submits a coexistence agreement signed with a previously registered trademark owner,the trademark application can often be recognized by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in the review procedure,or the coexistence agreement can be recognized by the court in the litigation procedure.However,the validity of trademark coexistence agreement is not clearly defined in our laws,and the attitudes of judicial and administrative organs are different in practice,which leads to the result of different judgments in the same case and seriously affects judicial justice.Thus,a thorough discussion of the trademark coexistence agreement’s legality is required.This paper includes six chapters:The first chapter "Introduction" puts forward the problems to be studied in this paper,and expounds the research value,research methods and research status of scholars at home and abroad.Chapter two is "A Comprehensive Examination of the Trademark Coexistence Agreements".The notion of trademark coexistence is first defined,and combs out the development history of trademark coexistence agreement.In addition,it provides three scenarios that demonstrate the theoretical justification for trademark coexistence agreements: the principle of autonomy of private rights,achieving legislative purpose,the pursuit of fairness and efficiency.In the second place,it discusses the institutional value of trademark coexistence agreement: first,it is conducive to saving trademark resources;second,it can reduce litigation disputes and promote market competition.Through discussion,it provides a theoretical basis for the study of trademark coexistence agreement below.The third chapter,"Judicial Status and Dilemma evaluating a trademark coexistence agreement’s effectiveness",takes relevant cases in China as research materials,respectively enumerates cases of denying trademark coexistence agreement and cases method confirming a trademark coexistence agreement’s efficacy,and based on this,analyzes the reasons for these two different judgment attitudes,it identifies four problems with the trademark coexistence agreement’s application in China: the criteria for determining the effectiveness are blank,the relationship with confusing theory is unclear,the criteria for choosing and rejecting the interests of consumers are unclear,and the criteria for judging whether it harms public interests are not uniform.Chapter four "Experience of how to judge a trademark coexistence agreement’s legality abroad" compares and analyzes the absolute validity model of Britain and the relative validity model of the United States from the aspects of property concept and trademark registration system.Through comparative analysis,combined with the reality of China’s trademark law,it is concluded that China should choose the relative validity model,that is to say,respect the autonomy of the trademark owner’s will.When the existence of the trademark coexistence agreement can effectively reduce the possibility of consumer confusion with other factors,and it does not harm the public interest,it is deemed to be effective.The fifth chapter "Suggestions for Improving the Trademark Coexistence Agreement’s Validity in China ",puts forward feasible suggestions from three aspects:concept clarification,system design and Identification standard.In terms of ideas,it is clear that the first value orientation of China’s trademark law should be the interests of trademark owners;In the aspect of system design,the trademark registration procedure is standardized from three aspects: expanding the provisions of the trademark coexistence agreement,stipulating the effective elements of coexistence agreement and adopting the filing and registration system;In terms of identification criteria,,the factors to be considered in determining the validity of coexistence agreement should be made clear in judicial interpretation: first,improve the examination standard of confusion possibility,make it clear that trademark coexistence does not require completely eliminating confusion,judging confusion possibility by multi-factor detection and refining and grading the judgment standard of confusion possibility;Secondly,the criteria for judging public interests are reasonably defined,which mainly include that consumers’ interests can not be completely upgraded to public interests,that they can be judged according to the Classification Table of Goods and Services,that monitoring mechanisms for public events and social hotspots should be established,and that all-inclusive clauses should be set up.The sixth chapter "Conclusion" summarizes the full text at the end,in order to provide some reference for standardizing the development and practical application of trademark coexistence agreement.