Analysis Of Similar Goods Recognition

In the early days,the protection of trademark rights was based on the general recognition that the mark was a "property".The modern trademark law is not only protecting the property rights of the trademark,but also protecting the goodwill carried by the trademark.To this end,the trademark legislation extending the scope of protection to similar goods become proper meaning.However,the identification of similar goods in judicial practice has the following problems.First of all,The subjective standard of similar product identification is unknown.The reason is that the trademark legislation does not make the specific stipulation on the connotation of the confusion theory and the judgment method of the possibility of confusion,which leads to the determination of the trademark infringement in the identification of the similarity of the commodity.At the same time,because of the trademark legislation on the subject of goods identified by the subjective standard is unclear,making the internalization of the practice of legislation in the "relevance" standard and established the "confusion" standard.However,the above-mentioned method of confusing is unreasonable and should be discarded.At this time,it is necessary to redefine the relationship between commodity similarity and confusion,so as to meetting the need of trademark infringement judgment and solving the problem of subjective identification of similar goods.Through the analysis of the legislation of commodity similarity and confusing possibility,the author obtains the legislation which is suitable for China,that is,the prerequisite for the identification of commodity similarity.Secondly,there are problems in the judicial practice of the adoption of similar factors.The reason is that China’s trademark legislation does not consider the similar provisions of similar goods and similar product identification method does not make specific provisions.Although judicial practice and academics tend to equate similar goods with associated goods to solve this problem.But the analysis shows that the relevant commodity rules are not suitable for China’s similar products identified.We should learn from the more objective and unified EU similar commodity system to solve our problems.When the trademark legislation of our country was amended in 2013,the conditions of "confusing" were included in the infringement determination in the light of the international treaties and the common practice of each country.However,this did not change the relationship between the original commodity similarity determination and the possibility of confusion.At the same time,it brings some new problems,these are,are the identification of commodity similarity and the identification of trademark similarity still necessary? If necessary,should the internalization of the "confusing possibility" standard be the criteria for identifying similarity? If it is not necessary,what is the relationship between the similarity and the possibility of confusing?In this paper,the author based on judicial practice,combined with the relevant theory to start arguing for the improvement of trademark legislation to make their own recommendations.This paper is divided into four parts.The first chapter,Similar problems in the identification of goods.In this chapter,the author concludes with the analysis of 114 cases involving similar products,and obtains the problems that exist in the judicial practice.In the first section,the author analyzes the problems of the standard of similar products in judicial practice.I believe that China’s similar product standards,including subjective standards and objective standards in two ways.There are some problems in the judicial practice that the subjective cognition standard is unknown and the relationship between the subjective recognition standard and the objective standard is unknown.In the second section,the author analyzes the problems existing in the consideration of similar commodities.As a result of similar product identification process the court usually first of all factors for comparative analysis,after determining whether to meet the requirements of subjective criteria,and finally to identify similar goods or not.So similar to the commodity identified considerations can also be said that the subjective criteria for the consideration of factors.In the practice of judicial practice,there are different factors in the consideration of factors such as the number of different factors and the different factors.Chapter 2,Analysis of similar product identification standards.In the first section,after analyzing the relationship between subjective standards and subjective recognition criteria and objective criteria for similar products,the author thinks that the reason for the problems mentioned in the first section of Chapter 1 is that the courts in our judicial practice will confuse the possibility Determine the internalization of similar goods in the identification.And this kind of internalization practice itself has many problems,should be abandoned.Throughout the trademark legal system,there are three legislative cases for the relationship between commodity similarity and the possibility of confusion.And what kind of legislation is best suited to learn to solving the problem of similar products identified in China,the following will be further analysis.In the second section,the author analyzes the legislation that determines the similarity of the absorption similarity.The legislation is represented by US trademark legislation.Therefore,the author of this article based on the US trademark system,from the confusion of the legislative evolution of legislation and the possibility of confusion in the judicial practice to determine the shortcomings of legislation.In the third section,the author analyzes the similarity as a prerequisite for the determination of the possibility of confusion.Such legislation is represented by the European Union trademark legislation.Finally,I believe that: compared with the previous legislation,the latter legislation is more suitable for application to similar products in China that.Chapter 3,Analysis of similar product identification methods.In the first section,the author analyzes the methods of determining the similar products in China.In this section,the author thinks that the reason of the similar factors in the similar commodities is that the trademark legislation of our country does not stipulate the connotation of the similar products and the connotation of the factors.Judicial practice and academia try to solve this problem with the rules of related products.However,I believe that this method is wrong.In the second section,after analyzing the rules of related commodities,the author thinks that the rules should not be used to identify similar products in China.In the third section,after analyzing the similar commodity system in the EU,the author thinks that it is more suitable for the trademark legislation of our country than the related commodity system.Chapter 4,Improve the similar product identification system.This chapter takes the first chapter two questions as the guidance,proposed similar product system perfect suggestion.In the first section,the author thinks that it should be clear that the similarity is identified as the prerequisite for the judgment of the possibility of confusion.Specifically,the definition of the possibility of confusion and the possibility of confusion should be clearly defined by trademark legislation.In the second section,the author thinks that we should learn from the similar commodity system of the EU,clarifing the connotation of the similar factors and the similar product identification method.