Research On The Similar Goods And Its' Criteria Of Determination In The Perspective Of Association Of Goods

There has been subjective and objective criteria of determination on similar goods.The concept in the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks(referred as “Judicial Interpretation”)was identified as subjective criteria whose core is making the likelihood of confusion be the final criteria.In contrast,that in the Standards for Trademark Examination and Trial is regarded as an objective criteria,the core lies in making determination only through the objective physical properties of commodities and market factors,without considering the likelihood of confusion.However,the likelihood of confusion is the criterion for judging trademark infringement in our country: the traditional trademark infringement judgment adopt the “similarity standard”,that is “same or similar trademark + same or similar product”,gradually adding the concept of likelihood of confusion into “similar trademark” and “similar goods”.As a result,“similarity standard" is developed into“confused similarity standard”.The 2013 Trademark Law made it more clear and straightforward to establish the “likelihood of confusion” as the standard of trademark infringement,resulting the paradox between “similar goods” and the“likelihood of confusion” that the determination of the former is one of necessaryconditions of trademark infringement,while the former needs the help of the later to support and the later is also the standard of trademark.A circular argument and the logical inversion of the results and means exit.During 2004 to 2006,the People's Court takes the same approach as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board(referred as “TRAB”): affirmed the fundamental role of the Similar Goods and Services Division Table(referred of“Division Table”).However,changes in way of goods transactions,consumer behaviors and psychology quietly change the similar relationships between goods,and the relatively rigid Division Table has been difficult to adapt to this trend.In order to adapt to the new trend of social and economic development,the TRAB and the People's Court have begun to break the Division Table to determine whether the goods are similar.It was in the process that the concept of “relevance of goods” or “related goods” is gradually paid attention by relevant departments.First,TRAB put the “stronger relevance of goods” as one of the six major factors in the criteria which breaks the Division Table.Second,the Supreme People's Court promulgated the Opinions on Bringing the Role of Trial Function of Intellectual Property Rights into Full Play to Promote the Social Attention to Issues of Great Development and Prosperity of Culture and Coexistence of Economy,Economy and Society,which confirms the “relevance of goods” as a determinant of “similar goods” for the first time.The full text is divided into three parts: introduction,text and conclusion,and the text is divided into three chapters.The first chapter is the foundation of this paper,including the discussion of several important issues.First,starting from the subjective and objective criteria for the determination of similar goods,it points out the differences between the judgment criteria of the TRAB and the court.At the same time,it pointed out the logic paradoxes of similar goods and the cyclical argumentation of the likelihood of confusion in the Judicial Interpretation: the likelihood of confusion is the standard of trademark infringement,however,we use the standard to determine whether the goods are similar.Afteranalyzing the historical causes,it discussed the relationship between similar goods and the likelihood of confusion and pointed out that commodity similarity is only one factor to judge the likelihood of confusion,and serves together with trademark factor to make decision on trademark infringement.In details,the specific relationship between the degree of similarity of goods and trademark factor in the judgment of likelihood of confusion is also concretely demonstrated.Secondly,it introduces the legal practice of “relevance of goods” adopted by the TRAB and the People's Court.Through empirical research,it summarizes the specific issues that currently exist between the TRAB and the People's Court in applying the “relevance of goods”.First,there is no provision on the relevance of goods in the current basic laws.The provisions in judicial practice only have suitability for individual cases,and have little effect on follow-up cases.This leads to ambiguous and lack of argumentation in judicial practice;Due to the unreasonable grasp and understanding of the likelihood of confusion and the similarity of commodities and the nature of similar goods,there have been many surprising or ridiculous similar product recognition cases.The second chapter is based on the close relationship between the trademark and the market,and analyzes the essence of the similar goods under the relevance of the goods through the causes of similar products existed in the trademark law.In the discussion,taking the United States' related goods legislation and judicial practice as examples.The concept of “similar goods” is created in the protection of trademark rights that can be obtained on the scope of the natural expansion of goods.Judgment of “similar goods” is a test of “proximity of goods”,and “proximity of goods” is the degree of relevance and relevance of goods.In other words,the essence of “similar goods” stipulated in the legal language in china refers to the relevance of the goods.In addition,the author proposes that the “similar goods” judgment in China is based on the general public perception of the relevant multi-factors.The three chapter is the reconstruction of China's similar goods certification standards.After determining the meaning of the relevant public under the trademark legal system,author defined the scope of the group they may include,and therelevant public scope is divided into two categories according to different goods categories.The scope of the relevant public and the degree of attention of each type are all different.In the end,the author drew on the EU Trademark Law in the legal perfection and practice of the consideration of factors,and in particular its refined regulations on the elements of consideration.In particular,it is pointed out that the "Nice Classification" or "Differentiation Form" is not the basis for the identification of similar goods,and it has only reference significance.In terms of considerations,elements that are not specified by China in the EU's "Trademark Opposition Guidelines" are added,and the connotation of each element,the importance of judgments on similar goods,and the interrelationships among various elements are clarified.The conclusion part summarizes and summarizes the three conclusions drawn in this paper.First,the standard of infringement established in China's new trademark law is in line with the mainstream trend of judging the infringement of the world's trademark.Both the concept of similar trademark and similar goods under this standard need to be redefined.Similar trademark refers to the similarity of trademark logo,the product is similar means to the physical similarities,both served to the final judgment of likelihood of confusion.Second,the emergence of a similar system of goods is the result of the Trademark Law constantly adapting to the diversified economic development.The substance of similar goods is the degree of association of the commodities.In the specific judgment,we first need to make a clear distinction between similar and dissimilar in the far sense: Whether the same trademark is used on two commodities is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public,and goods that are not easily confused by related public are not similar goods.The judgment of similarity degree or correlation degree of goods is not the judgment of concrete numerical value,but needs to be measured together with the mark.If the similarity degree of the mark is high,the mark is strong and the popularity is high,only a lower similarity of goods needed to establish the likelihood of confusion.On the contrary,it is against.Third,judgments on similar products have no substantial relationship with the "Classification Table" and "Differentiation Table".The specific judgments should focus on the following elements from the perspectives of business and the market:the function,purpose,nature,mode of use,sales channels,relevant Consumers,complementary and competitive products,raw materials and components of goods,goods and spare parts.Depending on the circumstances of the case,these factors are also of different significance.Trademark examination and court staff at work should determine the specific considerations and the importance of various elements in the determination of similar goods depending the cases,make sure the relationship between the considerations elements.Staff should issue a more specific argument for the above factors in the opposition,review,revocation,invalidation and judicial trial should make a more specific argument for the above factors.