Regulation Of Trademark Confusion-Perspective "Lacoste" V."Singapore Crocodile" Case

"Trademark Law" purpose of trademark protection is to prohibit others from using thetrademark rights of people of goodwill, to prevent confusion in order to protect the trademarkand the public interest, the protection of the stable development of the market economy. Theconfuse fragmented association between the trademark and the goods or services, and to causethe relevant public sources or the relationship between the misidentification occurred in thechoice of goods or services. China accepted trademark confuse theory, but to cause publicconfusion about China’s "Trademark Law" is not to determine the standard of trademarkinfringement, and does not provide confusing decision factors.In this paper, the use of case analysis and the study of comparative law "trademarkconfusion". Trademark infringement cases, the researchers confuse the meaning of theory,type, and that the standards. Learn from European and American legislation, combined withChina’s trademark legislation and practice, and recommendations put forward a soundtrademark confusion of trademark infringement identified. In this paper, a total of four parts:The first part of Case Profile. Introduction and analysis of "Lacoste" v."SingaporeCrocodile" trademark infringement case. China’s "Trademark Law" Article52provides thatinfringement of registered trademark rights standards in China, to avoid "confusion" butprovisions to use the same or similar trademarks in the same or similar goods constituteinfringement. Beijing Higher People’s Court found the two trademarks have crocodilegraphics, but different and a whole different letters of the alphabet in the trademark, so it willnot cause confusion among consumers.(2000) was made high Chu Zi No.29ruling rejectedthe the Lacoste company’s litigation request. The Lacoste Company appealed the first instanceverdict, to appeal to the Supreme People’s Court. After the hearing, the Supreme People’sCourt made the judgment of the (2009) Min San Zhong Zi No.3, identified the "LACOSTEmap trademark" CARTELO Figure trademark part to approximate but overall different, doesnot make the source of consumer goods confusion. The judgment dismissed the appeal andupheld the original verdict. The judgment of the Supreme People’s Court affirmed confusionas trademark infringement criteria important for the further improvement of China’sTrademark Law.The second part is a trademark confuse overview of the theory. Discusses theconnotation and type of trademark confusion. Trademark confuse traditional sense in the purchase of goods, consumers may think that the goods or services from the same company,but the fact that they come from different companies. As the economy continues to develop avariety of trademark infringing acts occur in different ways, trademark confuse theory fromthe main view including the the purchaser confusion and confusion of onlookers. Includes notonly the time of the purchase of goods or services, including the purchase of before and after.Trademarks confuse the type of classification is in line with the development of the trademarksystem, has a progressive significance. As a standard, the various elements of trademarkconfusion and particularity to distinguish the specific type of trademark confusion, to furtherstrengthen the perfection of the trademark system.The third part is the judgment trademarks confusion. The core of trademark confusion isthe likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion requires many considerations, notmechanically mechanically in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, and thejudgment of trademark confusion, the current national trademark law can also impossible togive the Serve the answer. Generally speaking, the judge trademark confusion the similarityof the trademarks, trademarks significant, the subjective intent of the defendant, the level ofattention of the relevant consumers, the evidence of actual confusion.The fourth part of the requirements and recommendations of trademark confusion oftrademark infringement identified. Analysis of the current situation of the Trademark Law ofChina and deficiencies, proposing trademark confusion of trademark infringement identified.At present, China’s "Trademark Law" whether the goods or services identical or approximateand whether a trademark is identical or similar as trademark infringement judgment standard,this standard only listed the external manifestation of trademark infringement behavior, ratherthan point out the substantial elements.Protection of trademark rights in the case of no likelihood of confusion, the contrary is toexpand the scope of trademark protection. Expand the scope of protection of trademark rightswill be restricted the use of the trademark by the others, and not conducive to thedevelopment of the market economy. China should be the criteria for judging the likelihood ofconfusion as to trademark infringement, the sound finds that consideration of the likelihood ofconfusion, the establishment of the trademark the questionnaires public survey system.