The Improvement Of The Revocation System Of Non-used Registered Trademark

With the development of economy,trademarks have become more and more important for enterprises,and the number of trademark registrations has also shown a rapid growth.In order to effectively manage registered trademarks,China has introduced a trademark registration system.This provision urges trademark rights holders to use unused trademarks to ensure the effective operation of the trademark registration system.If the registered trademark does not continue to use the revocation system,others can correct the situation caused by the acquisition of registration and useless,so the emergence of the trademark non-use revocation system has a significant influence on the operation of the trademark law.The continuous use of the revocation system for trademarks is increasingly used in practice.China's 2013 Trademark Law further stipulates further regulations on the continued withdrawal of trademarks.However,due to the lack of legislative experience in China's trademark law,the connotation and extension of the continuous useless trademark revocation system have not been explicitly stipulated,which has caused confusion in judicial practice.Here,the author continues to use the unregistration system as a focus point.Based on the relevant theoretical content,the author discusses the three-year continuous useless revocation system for trademarks in China from various perspectives,and points out some of its remaining deficiencies.Contrast the system with foreign practices and conduct all-round exploration.Combining with the actual judicial cases in various countries,through comparative research methods,we propose a consummation proposal for China's registered trademark without revoking the system that meets our national conditions.This paper uses semantic analysis,comparative analysis and literature analysis to discuss the continuous useless registration cancellation system of registered trademarks.The full text has six parts,in-depth analysis and research on the continuous useless trademark revocation system.In the first part of this article,a general description of the continuous useless trademark revocation system is described.It illustrates the evolution of the continuous useless revocation system for trademarks in various regions of the world,and specifically describes the trademark non-use revocation system in China's"Trademark Law" and related laws.Specific regulations in the regulations.It also analyzes one case in the use of trademark revocation cancellation system in China,the"SODA" trademark case,which is used to elicit problems further discussed later in this article.The second part mainly discusses the theoretical foundation of our country's continuous useless trademark revocation system.First of all,a certain analysis of the trademark function value theory was conducted.After that,it explains the theory of the invalidity of German rights,and discusses in detail that the core idea that the revocation of the trademark does not use and the theory of the right to failure is very similar:the right law that is not exercised for a long time does not need to give protection.Secondly,it analyzes the drawbacks brought by trademark registrationism and establishes the system of continuous useless trademark revocation in order to maintain the value of competition order.The final finding is that the establishment of a trademark withholding of withdrawal does not only meet the legislative purpose of the trademark law,but it is not only reasonable but also necessary.Next,it analyzes the four issues related to the application of the system of continuous cancellation of registered trademarks.The third part analyzes the use of trademark in the system of non use revocation from two aspects:objective elements and subjective elements.The objective elements of trademark use include four aspects:openness,legality,and no change in trademark distinctiveness and the use of trademarks on designated goods.Then,it analyzes the subjective requirements of trademark use from two aspects:the use of the trademark owner and the real use of the trademark.Moreover,through the comparative study,the author makes three suggestions on trademark use.The fourth part consists of three levels.First of all,it expounds the starting time for China not to use it for three consecutive years.Then it introduces the concept of temporary use through comparison with foreign legislation.It finds that China's regulations cannot rule out unscrupulous speculative use of trademarks.It is suggested that China establish temporary use as an exception for three-year calculations in the system of continuous non-use revocation.In the fifth part,the four justifications for the non-use of trademarks are specifically elaborated:due to force majeure,due to government policy constraints,due to bankruptcy and liquidation,and other legal reasons that cannot be attributed to the trademark registration subject Used.First of all,analyzing the situation of failure to use the trademark due to bankruptcy and liquidation and finding that the bankruptcy liquidation became justified is more complicated.It is not only that bankruptcy and liquidation will become a justification,and it is necessary to distinguish between the company's internal reasons and external reasons..Secondly,through the comparison of China's and Japan's policy-restricted identification,we find that there is still room for further improvement in the analysis of specific ideas in China.Then,it elaborates whether force majeure can be used as a justification for not using in several situations.Finally,examples of the "ice flower" case and the "crown"trademark case discussed the use of trademarks for other reasons.In the end,the author believes that it is necessary to refine the reasons for not using registered trademarks..Finally,the sixth part compares the retroactive force with Japan's non-use of the revocation system and analyzes the two validity issues of China's continued non-use of the revocation decision-the termination time of the exclusive right of the revocation of the trademark and the infringer's ability to use the trademark not to use it.As a non-infringement defense.