The Indirect Confuse Constitute Trademark Infringement Of Justice

With the prosperity and development of commodity economy, trademark infringement has become even worse. Trademark infringement from the traditional direct confusion, to the coexistence of direct and indirect confusion. The current practice, causing consumer direct confusion mistaken sources constitute trademark infringement judicial cognizance has formed a relatively fixed reliable standard. It can solve the case. And the more hidden causes of trademark infringement mislead consumer Lenovo constitute indirect confusion, there are different judgments in practice. Even the same or similar cases, different instance level or different regions the court finds that the facts of the case are the same, but analysis and the decision opposite. These situations in reality more and more common, confused with the judicial practice, but also challenge our understanding of the unification of the judicial standard.The reason lies in the legislation on the use of the same or similar standards to judge trademark infringement. This to direct confusion constitute trademark infringement has identified a strong practical, but indirect confusion constitute trademark infringement is clearly inadequate. Therefore, in practice many court by citing confusion possibilities of the standard to solve this dilemma. Supreme Court judicial interpretation in a certain extent also admitted that the likelihood of confusion for value. However, both the judicial interpretation and judicial practice, more confusion standard is determine whether the trademark constitutes a similar, goods or services are similar.As a result of improper and narrow the scope of indirect confusion improper expansion at the same time, the same or similar cases have different results.This paper is divided into five chapters. From indirect trademark confusion of origin and development, all the way to explore Chinese and American judicial practice determination of indirect confusion, combined with the case, from the way to recognize and subject of judging proposed indirect trademark confusion constitute trademark infringement of the four new thought. The final conclusion is indirect confusion constitute trademark infringement, judicial cognizance should follow two principles, no confusion is no infringement, no correlation between misidentification is no confusion.