Research On The Rules Of The Similarity Of Goods In Trademark Law

The judgment of trademark infringement is an important content in the system of trademark,article 57 of Trademark Law of China(2013)provides for the specific conditions of the trademark infringement.While it is easy to judge the same goods and the same trademarks,using same/similar trademark with the registered trademark on same/similar goods should be resorted to further judgment.The judgment of similar goods is a common problem which the court and the TRAB confronted with.The judgment of similar goods is a key point in certain judicial and administrative authorization cases.Based on the situation mentioned above,I commence analysis of this paper.The main part of the paper is,from a perspective of classification of the goods,the disparity in the judgment of similar goods between the court and the TRAB.And the method of this paper is the comparison of relevant data and cases.And finally comes the legislative suggestions to perfect related laws and regulations.This paper will divided into four partsThe first part: This part firstly introduces the history of the trademark registration on classification of goods and category in China,and the constantly perfection and expansion of the category of goods.Then summarizes the different classifications(mainly the international classification)adopted by a variety of countries around the world.Finally focus on the status of the trademark registered in commodity and service international classification table and similar goodsandservice area table in judging similar goods.The second part: This part firstly studies on the judgment of similar goods from a perspective of judicial cases.Specifically speaking,based on the cases of trademark civil disputes and administrative authorizations,this part summarizes the disparity in judging the similar goods between the court and the TRAB.In addition,this part discusses the applicable law which governing the trademark infringement case Didi Taxi(“Didi Taxi” is a “communication tools + transport” service at the background of “Internet +” era).Based on the case discussion,this part finally classifies the new goods/services which arise from “Internet +” era,and elaborates the attitude the courts hold to this kind of classification.The third part: This part is about the legal logic thinking on the judgment of similar products and similarity infringement.Firstly,it analyzes the logic choices which different countries/regions adopted to judge the infringement of similar goods/trademark.These logic choices are divided into three parts: 1.Completely subjective standard represented by The Lanham Act of the United States model.2.Objective standard supplemented by subjective standard,which is represented by TRIPS agreement and The EC Trademark Ordinance mode.3.Objective standard represented by Taiwan province.Then,this part talks about the logic choice of judgment standard of China.Three factors of the standard is seldom applied by the court or the TRAB,but which can influence the result of the whole case: similar goods and confusion,similar goods and brand recognition,the definition of the relevant public.The fourth part: This is the most important part of the paper.Four dimensions have been discussed: the legislative standard,the judicial standard,the administrative duty of the trademark office and TRAB,and risk management of the enterprises.Further thinking about judgment of similar goods has been put forward.I think,when judging the infringement of similar goods,we should refer to Similar Goods and Service Classification Table,base on specific case,be directed by the principle of confusion and take the relevance between relevant public,goods recognition and the goods into consideration,and finally draw our conclusion.Conclusion: When judging the similar goods in the trademark infringement,rules and standard of judgment need to be furthered classified exactly.In addition,considering the classification of goods may change as society changes,we should take economics,consumer psychology,marketing and other disciplines into consideration when we make our judgment.