Case Analysis On The Exclusive Rights In Crocodiles Trademarks

In the present world, the status and the function of trademark which representsthe enterprise of goodwill is becoming more and more important. If its trademarkreputation is damaged or disappeared, the existence of trademark will not make sense.Because of its huge commercial value, the phenomenon of infringement, includingfake commodities and counterfeiting registered trademark, is not rare. This not onlydamaged legal rights of a large number of consumers and the owners of the trademark,but also destroyed fair and orderly competition order in the market. Among thesetrademark infringements, the basic and the main form are similar trademarks, thecognizance of which became a tricky problem in judicial practice.China’s current’Trademark Law’ and the relevant judicial interpretations stipulate the determinationof similar trademarks, which provide guidance meaning to the practice. However,because of the abstractness, generality and subjectivity of the determination of similartrademarks, the application of this practice remains in a chaotic situation. Sometimes,even of the basic fact is the same, there are different verdict in the same case in termsof different level of trial. The case of Crocodile Company reflects the development ofidentification of similar trademarks in practice. Similar Trademark is a kind ofconfounding approximation, that is to say, whether it “similar” or not is based onwhether it will make the relevant public confused or not, rather than similar elementsof a trademark. The standard of judging whether or not a trademark infringe aregistered trademark lies in the likelihood of confusion to the public. That will niptrademark infringement in the blossom. How to collect the data about the likelihoodof confusion to the public? That explains the importance of questionnaire survey.Besides, it can also avoid the judge’s subjective assumptions and make verdict resultsmore objective. This case also shows that, because of lag nature of law and theparticularity of individual cases, identifying similar trademarks only in accordancewith the current regulations is not enough. Other factors should be taken intoconsideration, such as the defendant’s subjective intention, the coexistence oftrademark, the lasting time of the trademark and so on. Only by these ways can theresults enjoy more rationality and impartiality. These may become important factorswhich should be paid more attention to in perfecting our country’s "Trademark Law".