Study On The Intent To Use Of Trademark Registration Stage Under The Acquisition System Of Trademark Registration

In order to curb malicious registration behaviors such as hoarding of trademarks,the newly revised Trademark Law in 2019 explicitly lists "malicious trademark registration applications not for the purpose of use" as an absolute ground for refusal of registration or invalidation,which means unrestricted by the applicant and time limit.Since "use intention" or "use purpose" of the trademark registration phase has been mentioned for the first time in China's trademark legislation,its key issues such as the system positioning,adjustment scope,and judgment standards need to be demonstrated.In October 2019,the "Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Registration Applications" issued by the State Administration of Market Regulation classified the malicious registration behavior lacking intent of use into five types of situations,solving some of the problems in proving use intent.Prior to the publication of judicial interpretation and meticulous administrative regulations,a comprehensive analysis of the identification of trademark intent and related issues is worth researching.Existing research was mostly based on "malicious",rather than "use intent".This article draws on the legislative and judicial experience of the United States and the United Kingdom,bases on the premise of China's acquisition system,and analyzes the judgement standards of use intention of trademark registration.Chapter ? starts from goodwill,and believes that only continuous use of trademarks can accumulate goodwill.In order to balance fairness and efficiency,maintain the balance of interests of multiple parties,and implement the principle of good faith,it is necessary to strengthen the use of trademarks to modify and supplement the registration system.It also sorts out the situation of trademark activities in China and summarizes the outstanding problems in practice.Chapter ? mainly introduces the legislative and judicial experience of introducing concept of use intention in the process of trademark registration in the United States and the United Kingdom,and emphasizes the impact of the acquisition mode of trademark rights on the criteria for determining intent to use,as well as the limited references for China.It is concluded that China has not established an intentional use system,only established a malicious registration rejection system,thus adopted a more "mild" approach when introducing the use intention requirement.Chapter ? mainly discusses the rules for the identification of trademark intent in China.Firstly,based on the special proof logic of "subjective psychology with purpose orientation",the article analyzes the principle of "objective fact presumes subjective activity",and its exceptions.Secondly,from the perspective of the meaning of the word,it is believed that the definition of "trademark use" should highlight "differentiation of origin" and "authenticity".Thirdly,from the perspective of "directly related to actual use" and "directly related to the trademark owner",the objective factual evidence that can prove the intent to use is typed Analyzed,and the article emphasizes the practical method of holistic observation to form a chain of evidence.Meanwhile,the article criticizes two of the use intent judgment factors listed in the "Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Registration Applications",comparing "characteristic defects" and "suspected squatting",and emphasizes the importance of harmonizing administrative and judicial standards.Chapter ? analyzes the specific application of Article 4 of the New Trademark Law,discusses the relationship between the "not intended to use" factor and the "malicious" factor in Article 4,and argues that the former should be highlighted.Then,the article compares main functions of each specific system under the trademark "requirements of use" System,and also discusses their coordination and cooperation with each other,so as to clarify the scope of application of the second half of paragraph 1 of Article 4.At last,the article try to put forward appropriate suggestions on the solution of confusion of terminology concepts that may arise in practice,submission of necessary preliminary evidence in application for a particular industry area and proof responsibility distribution of different subjects at different stages.