| The first chapter is about the “adverse effects” judged by the “Wechat case”, and reviews the application of judicial practice, concludes that different courts have adopted different criteria, including the premise that whether goods and service should be considered, intentionally registration and protect the corporation name by trademark. When we consider the goods and service, if the confusion of production area, quality, origin, or the overall should be considered meanwhile. About all of these issues, we should reread the “adverse effects” provision. The second chapter, we believe that the premise of “adverse effects” should be “signs and its composition” and thus no need to consider the trademark and the goods and service. The meaning of “adverse effects” is analyzed by literary explanation, legislation explanation and objective explanation, with the literary explanation, it should relate to morality, however in legislation explanation it should be the last clause of the whole §10.1 of Trademark Law and with objective explanation to testify the conclusion that “adverse effects" is to protect the public interests and public order for Trademark Law. Then to explain another “adverse effects”, which was result from “trademark use”, because of this, the meaning and method of using and most of the plaintiff consider the “adverse effects” is from trademark using which is in fact to protect their interests in stead of the public are stated. The third chapter is about the discussion on “adverse effects” judge criteria, one is about time identified; the other is for the relevant public. About the time identified, we should consider the judge time than the registration time. About the relevant public, it's wrong to judge “adverse effects” by it. The chapter four is about the analysis of the issues come from justice practice. Finally, to provide some advices for the arbiters and the plaintiff about the judgment of the “adverse effects”. |
PDF Full Text Request