Research On The Legal Issues Of Trademark Approximate Identification In Autork Trademark Infringement Case

A trademark is to identify the source of goods or services marks, on behalf of the corporate image, which is behind the huge commercial interests. Because of this, in the modern market economy, enterprises trademark infringement ca ses increasing in recent years, even more to the "counterfeit" other trademarks, confuse consumers, grab illegal profits staggering. Counterfeit trademark, not only violated the trademark rights of others, it also undermines the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, competition has greatly disturbed the normal order of market economy, to the country’s economic management has caused considerable distress.To maintain a normal market order and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the relev ant market players, China’s "Trademark Law" and relevant judicial interpretation to be a trademark infringement approximate the Legislation. However, China for trademark infringement approximate complete lack clear that standard, the court in adjudicating such disputes, with the larger room for discretion.In this paper, Rotork Company v "Autork" trademark infringement case as a starting point, whether around Litigation trademark infringement on trademark rights meaningful approximation of the focus of cont roversy, according to "Trademark Law" and the relevant judicial interpretations, From the trademark high degree of similarity and likelihood of confusion for the relevant public’s point of view, the case Litigation trademark similarity of the specific anal ysis. This paper argues that: First, both appearance, pronunciation and meaning, the Complaint does not have a high degree of similarity of trademarks; secondly, to confuse the body, confusion object, confusing time and whether it constitutes a reverse confusion, involving v mark on the relevant public does not have a likelihood of confusion. Through analysis, I believe the case Litigation Trademarks not highly similar, "Autork" trademark does not infringe trademark rights Rotork companies.From the analysis of this case, it is easy to see, there is a general problem of rough provisions of the Trademark Infringement approximate standard. When the judge finds that there is no uniform standard to quantify, making the country there is a big difference in the co urt verdict. This is not conducive to the maintenance of judicial fairness and justice, and not conducive to the protection of normal market competition order. This paper argues that, first of all, should be the subject of norms recognized trademark approx imate standard; uniform principles and procedures to be followed by similar trademarks identified; again, should be clearly identified trademark confounding factors.