Registered Trademarks Have Not Been Studied For Three Consecutive Years

At present,most countries and international organizations in this world have adopted the system of registration for the acquisition of trademarks,China adopts the same way to grant trademark exclusive rights.With the development of commodity economy and the property nature of trademark has become increasingly prominent,the consciousness of intellectual property protection of market main body is increasing.In recent years,the number of registration trademarks in China showed explosive growth,while there are some acts that disturb the market order,such as rush registration,hoarding.The most basic function of the trademark is identification.Even though the registration of trademark is complete,without be putting into use,identification function and other functions of the registered trademark just can not play their due efficacy.The vitality of the trademark can only be maintained through the use of the trademark,the trademark ceasing to use will not only take up limited trademark resources,but also increase the administrative cost of trademarks.Trademarks are limited public resources,therefore,in order to make up for the deficiency of trademark registration,and to protect the public's freedom to choose the trademark,countries have adopted the system of registration for the acquisition of trademarks have already established the corresponding system to clear the trademark which is not used in the register.China has also established a revocation system for non-used registered trademark.Because the design of vocation system is too general in the Trademark Law of 2013 and Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of 2014,and the lack of relevant judicial interpretations,which leads to a lot of differences between the administrative organs and judicial organs,especially for the identification of "no use" and "justification".These differences not only weaken the authority of the law,but also makes the revocation system can't play its due value.With the analysis and comparison of relevant laws and regulations of the case in European Union and Japan,this paper focus on the determination of "non use" and "justification" of the trademark revocation system in our judicial practice.Finally,combined with the mature laws and regulations of the foreign countries and other regions,and then put forward some suggestions for improvement.The structure of this paper is as follows.Chapter I Briefly introduces and compares the system of trademark revocation of three regions in Europe,Japan and china from the registration of "trademark use" and "justification" two issues,to illustrate on the significance of revocation system in registered trademark regulations and value in judicial practice.Chapter II Through study the core concept of trademark use: The use of registered trademarks is the real use of approved goods and service providers,The use of registered trademarks is the real use of approved goods and service providers.Through a large number of judicial cases “the use of a slight change”,“the use beyond the scope of approval”,“Partial use”,“ unauthorized use” four angles to explore the core question of the revocation system of registered trademark — the “use”.Chapter III With a detailed analysis of relevant cases of ‘force majeure',‘policy restrictions',‘ bankruptcy liquidation' and any other proper matters which cannot be attributed to the trademark registrant',to elaborates the justification in the revocation system,and summarizes the analysis of the conditions for the use of justification in practice.Chapter IV The conclusion part puts forward three suggestions for the improvement of China's current trademark revocation system.Firstly,by increasing the cost of trademark renewal to reduce the rush registration and hoarding phenomenon;Secondly,by increasing the intensity punishment period for the trademark holder who do not use it after registration;Thirdly,the use of a registered trademark shall not be used as a justification after the trademark owner has been informed of the request for trial.