搜索
标题摘要内容
（2016）最高法行再34号“拉菲庄园”商标近似问题
来源:
|
作者:佚名
|
发布时间: 2020-12-22
|
1077 次浏览
|
分享到:
拉菲罗斯柴尔德酒庄(简称拉菲酒庄)与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(简称商标评审委员会)、南京金色希望酒业有限公司(简称金色希望公司)
中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 (2016)最高法行再34号
Lafite Rothschild Winery (referred to as Lafite Winery) v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, (referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board), Nanjing Golden Hope Wine Co., Ltd. (referred to as Golden Hope Company)
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China Administrative Judgment (2016) Supreme Court No. 34
案情介绍:
再审申请人(原审第三人):拉菲罗斯柴尔德酒庄(CHATEAULAFITER0THSCHILD)。
被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。
被申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):南京金色希望酒业有限公司。
The petitioner(third party in the first instance): Lafite Rothschild Winery
(CHATEAULAFITER0THSCHILD).
Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
The respondent (the plaintiff in the first instance, the appellant in the second-instance): Nanjing Golden Hope Wine Co., Ltd.
2013年9月2日,商标评审委员会作出商评字[2013]第55856号《关于第4578349号"拉菲庄园"商标争议裁定书》(简称第55856号裁定)。该裁定认为：一、拉菲酒庄在案证据表明,在争议商标申请注册之前,国内刊物即已开始介绍拉菲酒庄及其生产的"LAFITE"葡萄酒,并将"LAFITE"译为"拉菲特",或将“CHATEAULAFITE”译为“拉斐堡”。经多年宣传,上述商标已形成对应关系,且金色希望公司亦认同拉菲酒庄“LAFITE”商标的中文译法为“拉斐”和“拉斐堡”。此后,国内媒体又将“LAFITE”译为“拉菲”进行宣传报道,拉菲酒庄在销售活动中也将“拉菲”作为音译词使用,并且在葡萄酒市场上形成较高的知名度。作为经营葡萄酒商品的同行业竞争者,金色希望公司理应知晓拉菲酒庄及其商标的使用情况,应有合理避让,却仍在葡萄酒等类似商品上注册了引证商标对应的中文译法“拉斐特”、“拉斐”、“拉菲”相近的争议商标,其行为难谓正当。因此,争议商标已经与引证商标构成类似商品上的近似商标,其注册使用易使消费者认为其所标示的产品来自拉菲酒庄或与拉菲酒庄存在某种关联的企业,违反了《商标法》第二十八条的规定。裁定：争议商标予以撤销。
On September 2, 2013, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made trademark dispute decision related to the No. 4578349 "Lafite Manor" (Decision No. 55856). The decision held that: 1. The evidence in the Lafite winery case indicates that before the filling date of the disputed trademark application, the publications in domestic has begun to introduce the Lafite winery and the produced "LAFITE" wine, further, translate the "LAFITE" into “拉菲特” or translate "CHATEAULAFITE" into "拉斐堡." After years of advertisement, the above trademarks have formed a corresponding relationship, and Golden Hope Company also agrees that the Chinese translation of Lafite's “LAFITE” trademark is “拉斐”和“拉斐堡”. Since then, the domestic publications also translated “LAFITE” into “拉菲” for reporting. Lafite also used “拉菲” as a transliteration word in sales and had a high reputation in the wine market. As a competitor in the same industry, Golden Hope Company should be aware of the use of Lafite Winery and its trademarks, and should reasonably avoid the confliction. It is not legitimate to file the application of the Chinese translation words on the identical goods such as wine. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted the similar trademark on the same goods with the reference trademark, and its registration and use can make it easy for the consumers to believe that the product is from Lafite Winery or some kind of association with Lafite Winery. Then it is violates Article 28 of the Trademark Law. The disputed trademark is revoked.
被申请人金色希望公司不服商标评审委员作出的第55856号裁定，于法定期限内向北京市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院法院认为:争议商标为“拉菲庄园”,其中的“庄园”二字使用在葡萄酒等商品上显著性较弱,“拉菲”二字为争议商标的主要部分。金色希望公司将与引证商标对应的音译相同或者近似的文字“拉菲”作为主要部分申请注册争议商标,指定使用在与引证商标核定使用的商品相同或者类似的商品上,容易使相关公众认为这些商品具有相同的来源或者其来源之间具有密切的联系,从而对商品的来源产生误认。金色希望公司提交的证据尚难以证明争议商标经过使用,已经足以使相关公众将其标识的商品之来源与引证商标标识的商品之来源相区分。判决:维持第55856号裁定。
The respondent Golden Hope Company appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court. The Court held that the disputed trademark was “Lafite Manor”, in which the word “manor” was used to be less distinctive in wine and other goods, and the word “Lafite” was the main part of the disputed trademark. Golden Hope Company file the application for the registration of the disputed trademark with the same or similar content “拉菲” which is corresponding to the reference trademark, and on the identical or proximity of the goods as those approved for use by the reference trademark which is easy to lead the misidentification of the source of the goods. The evidence submitted by Golden Hope Company is still difficult to prove that the disputed trademark has been used enough to enable the relevant public to distinguish the source of the goods from the source of the reference trademark. The Decision No. 55856 Maintained.
金色希望公司不服一审判决,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院认为：争议商标由中文“拉菲庄园”构成,其显著识别部分为“拉菲”,引证商标由外文文字“LAFITE”构成,争议商标与引证商标的标识在字形、读音等方面存在较大差异。从拉菲酒庄提交的证据看,难以认定引证商标在争议商标申请日之前,已经在中国大陆地区具有市场知名度,相关公众已经能够将引证商标与“拉菲”进行对应性识别。因此，争议商标与引证商标不构成近似商标。争议商标的注册和使用长达十年之久,其已经形成稳定的市场秩序,从维护已经形成和稳定的市场秩序考虑,本案争议商标的注册应予维持。一审判决及第55856号裁定对此认定错误,二审法院予以纠正。判决：金色希望公司的相关上诉理由成立,予以支持。
Golden Hope Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The Court held that the disputed trademark consists of the Chinese word “Lafite Manor”, and its distinctive part is “Lafite”. The reference trademark is composed of the foreign language “LAFITE”. There are more differences between the disputed trademark and the reference trademark is in the shape and pronunciation. Judging from the evidence submitted by Lafite Winery, it is difficult to determine that the reference trademark has already got market popularity in mainland China before the filing date of disputed trademark, and the relevant public has been able to identify the reference trademark with “Lafite”. Therefore, the disputed trademark does not constitute approximate trademark with the reference trademark. The registration and use of the disputed trademarks is over ten years, so a stable distinguished market formed. The registration of disputed trademarks in this case should be maintained in consideration of maintaining the established stable market. The judgment of the first instance and the decision of No. 55856 were found to be wrong, and should be corrected. Golden Hope's appeal are established and granted.
拉菲酒庄申请再审称, 在案证据足以证明在争议商标申请日前,引证商标已经在中国境内使用并具有较高知名度，“拉菲”作为“LAFITE”的音译已经与“LAFITE”及拉菲酒庄建立起一种被公众广泛理解的、明确的、稳定的对应关系，议商标与引证商标的音译“拉菲”完全相同,相同商品上、高度近似的两个商标,必然造成混淆、误认。
Lafite Winery applied for a retrial, saying that the evidence in the case is sufficient to prove that the trademark has been used in China and has a high reputation before the disputed trademark application date. The translation of “Lafite” as “拉菲” has been combined with “LAFITE” and established a clear and stable correspondence with Lafite Winery which is widely recognized by the public. The transliteration of the trademark and the reference trademark “拉菲” is exactly on the same goods and high similarity which is inevitably cause the likelihood of confusion.
终审判决认定：
本院再审认为,本案的争议焦点问题是:争议商标与引证商标是否构成商标法第二十八条规定的近似商标。
认定商标是否近似,既要考虑商标构成要素及其整体的近似程度,也要考虑相关商标的显著性和知名度、所使用商品的关联程度等因素,以是否容易导致混淆作为判断标准。
The opinion of the Supreme Court.
The court rereviewed that the issue in this case is whether the disputed trademark and the reference trademark constitute an approximate trademark as stipulated in Article 28 of the Trademark Law.
To determine whether the trademark is similar, it is necessary to consider the degree of similarity of the trademark’s elements and the whole, and also consider the factors such as the distinctiveness and popularity of the relevant trademarks, the degree of association of the goods used, and others. The criterion is likelihood of confusion.
争议商标由中文文字“拉菲庄园”构成,“庄园”用在葡萄酒类别上显著性较弱,“拉菲”系争议商标的主要部分。本案现有证据足以证明“LAFITE”在诉争争议商标申请日前在我国具有较高的知名度、为相关公众所知悉,我国相关公众通常以“拉菲”指代再审申请人“LAFITE”商标,并且“拉菲”已经与再审申请人“LAFITE”商标之间形成了稳定的对应关系,由于拉菲已经成为“LAFITE”的音译并形成了稳固的联系,争议商标与引证商标构成近似商标。
The disputed trademark is composed of the Chinese word “Lafite Manor”. The word “manor” has a weak distinctiveness used in the wine goods. “Lafite” is the main part of the disputed trademark design. The existing evidence in this case is sufficient to prove that “LAFITE” has a high reputation in China before the filing date of the disputed trademark, and is well known to the relevant public. The relevant public in China usually refers to the “LAFITE” trademark of the applicant by “拉菲”. “拉菲” was formed a stable correspondence with the trademark “LAFITE” of the petitioner. Since “拉菲” has become a transliteration of “LAFITE” and formed a fixed connection, the disputed trademark constitutes an similar trademark with the reference trademark.
商标评审委员会第55856号裁定关于“作为经营葡萄酒商品的同行业竞争者,金色希望公司理应知晓拉菲酒庄及其商标的使用情况,应有合理避让,却仍在葡萄酒等类似商品上注册了引证商标对应的中文译法‘拉菲特’‘拉斐’‘拉菲’相近的争议商标,其行为难谓正当。因此,争议商标已经与引证商标构成类似商品上的近似商标,其注册使用易使消费者认为其所标示的产品来自拉菲酒庄或与拉菲酒庄存在某种关联的企业,违反了商标法第二十八条的规定”认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,一审判决对其予以维持适用法律正确,本院予以维持。二审法院认定争议商标不应予以撤销没有事实和法律依据,本院予以纠正。
The No. 55856 decision of Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that “as a competitor in the same industry, Golden Hope Company should be aware of the prior use of Lafite Winery and its trademarks, and should reasonably avoid the confliction. It is not legitimate to file the application of the Chinese translation words on the identical goods such as wine. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted the similar trademark on the same goods with the reference trademark, and its registration and use can make it easy for the consumers to believe that the product is from Lafite Winery or has some kind of association with Lafite Winery. Then it is violated Article 28 of the Trademark Law. The disputed trademark is revoked.
The facts are clear, the applicable law is correct.
Reversed.
Comments
拉菲商标的保护问题主要是近似商标认定标准问题。在中国商标法的规定中，商标近似的判断标准时容易产生混淆和误认的可能性。具体的考虑因素有商标的近似程度，商品的类似程度，请求保护的商标的显著性和知名度情况。由于商标近似的判断问题在很大程度上存在主观判断的问题，特别是消费者调查的证据在中国的司法审判中的证明力非常有限，所以，对于商标是否构成近似的问题，不同的行政机构或者法院之间都存在不同的主观认识。
为了解决商标混淆误认判断标准不统一的法律问题，我们建议权利人要充分的举证来证明包括但不限于上述法律因素的证据，例如增加提交争议商标申请人主观恶意的证据，增加相关的公众将两件商标已经造成实际混淆误认的证据，争议商标申请人和引证商标权利人的行业可能存在交叉重合的证据等等，这些事实和证据并没有明确的体现在商标法律法规的规定上，但是在实际的司法案例中均有类似的判例予以适用。
The protection of the Lafite trademark is mainly related to the issue of trademark recognition standards. In the provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law, the possibility of confusion and misrecognition is easily caused by the judgment criteria of trademark approximation. The specific considerations are the degree of approximation of the trademark, the degree of similarity of the commodity, and the significance and popularity of the trademark being claimed. Due to the problem of subjective judgment of trademark approximation, there is a large problem of subjective judgment. In particular, the evidence of consumer investigation is very limited in the judicial trial in China. Therefore, different administrative agencies are concerned about whether trademarks are similar. Or there are different subjective perceptions between courts.
In order to solve the legal problem of inconsistent judgment standards for trademark confusion and misunderstanding, we recommend that the right holder should fully prove the evidence including but not limited to the above legal factors, such as increasing the evidence of the subjective malice of the applicant who submitted the disputed trademark, and increasing the relevant public. Evidence that the two trademarks have caused actual confusion and misunderstanding, the disputed trademark applicant and the cited trademark owner may have evidence of cross-coincidence, etc. These facts and evidence are not clearly reflected in the provisions of trademark laws and regulations. However, similar jurisprudence applies in actual judicial cases.
中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 (2016)最高法行再34号
Lafite Rothschild Winery (referred to as Lafite Winery) v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, (referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board), Nanjing Golden Hope Wine Co., Ltd. (referred to as Golden Hope Company)
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China Administrative Judgment (2016) Supreme Court No. 34
案情介绍:
再审申请人(原审第三人):拉菲罗斯柴尔德酒庄(CHATEAULAFITER0THSCHILD)。
被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。
被申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):南京金色希望酒业有限公司。
The petitioner(third party in the first instance): Lafite Rothschild Winery
(CHATEAULAFITER0THSCHILD).
Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
The respondent (the plaintiff in the first instance, the appellant in the second-instance): Nanjing Golden Hope Wine Co., Ltd.
2013年9月2日,商标评审委员会作出商评字[2013]第55856号《关于第4578349号"拉菲庄园"商标争议裁定书》(简称第55856号裁定)。该裁定认为：一、拉菲酒庄在案证据表明,在争议商标申请注册之前,国内刊物即已开始介绍拉菲酒庄及其生产的"LAFITE"葡萄酒,并将"LAFITE"译为"拉菲特",或将“CHATEAULAFITE”译为“拉斐堡”。经多年宣传,上述商标已形成对应关系,且金色希望公司亦认同拉菲酒庄“LAFITE”商标的中文译法为“拉斐”和“拉斐堡”。此后,国内媒体又将“LAFITE”译为“拉菲”进行宣传报道,拉菲酒庄在销售活动中也将“拉菲”作为音译词使用,并且在葡萄酒市场上形成较高的知名度。作为经营葡萄酒商品的同行业竞争者,金色希望公司理应知晓拉菲酒庄及其商标的使用情况,应有合理避让,却仍在葡萄酒等类似商品上注册了引证商标对应的中文译法“拉斐特”、“拉斐”、“拉菲”相近的争议商标,其行为难谓正当。因此,争议商标已经与引证商标构成类似商品上的近似商标,其注册使用易使消费者认为其所标示的产品来自拉菲酒庄或与拉菲酒庄存在某种关联的企业,违反了《商标法》第二十八条的规定。裁定：争议商标予以撤销。
On September 2, 2013, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made trademark dispute decision related to the No. 4578349 "Lafite Manor" (Decision No. 55856). The decision held that: 1. The evidence in the Lafite winery case indicates that before the filling date of the disputed trademark application, the publications in domestic has begun to introduce the Lafite winery and the produced "LAFITE" wine, further, translate the "LAFITE" into “拉菲特” or translate "CHATEAULAFITE" into "拉斐堡." After years of advertisement, the above trademarks have formed a corresponding relationship, and Golden Hope Company also agrees that the Chinese translation of Lafite's “LAFITE” trademark is “拉斐”和“拉斐堡”. Since then, the domestic publications also translated “LAFITE” into “拉菲” for reporting. Lafite also used “拉菲” as a transliteration word in sales and had a high reputation in the wine market. As a competitor in the same industry, Golden Hope Company should be aware of the use of Lafite Winery and its trademarks, and should reasonably avoid the confliction. It is not legitimate to file the application of the Chinese translation words on the identical goods such as wine. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted the similar trademark on the same goods with the reference trademark, and its registration and use can make it easy for the consumers to believe that the product is from Lafite Winery or some kind of association with Lafite Winery. Then it is violates Article 28 of the Trademark Law. The disputed trademark is revoked.
被申请人金色希望公司不服商标评审委员作出的第55856号裁定，于法定期限内向北京市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院法院认为:争议商标为“拉菲庄园”,其中的“庄园”二字使用在葡萄酒等商品上显著性较弱,“拉菲”二字为争议商标的主要部分。金色希望公司将与引证商标对应的音译相同或者近似的文字“拉菲”作为主要部分申请注册争议商标,指定使用在与引证商标核定使用的商品相同或者类似的商品上,容易使相关公众认为这些商品具有相同的来源或者其来源之间具有密切的联系,从而对商品的来源产生误认。金色希望公司提交的证据尚难以证明争议商标经过使用,已经足以使相关公众将其标识的商品之来源与引证商标标识的商品之来源相区分。判决:维持第55856号裁定。
The respondent Golden Hope Company appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court. The Court held that the disputed trademark was “Lafite Manor”, in which the word “manor” was used to be less distinctive in wine and other goods, and the word “Lafite” was the main part of the disputed trademark. Golden Hope Company file the application for the registration of the disputed trademark with the same or similar content “拉菲” which is corresponding to the reference trademark, and on the identical or proximity of the goods as those approved for use by the reference trademark which is easy to lead the misidentification of the source of the goods. The evidence submitted by Golden Hope Company is still difficult to prove that the disputed trademark has been used enough to enable the relevant public to distinguish the source of the goods from the source of the reference trademark. The Decision No. 55856 Maintained.
金色希望公司不服一审判决,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院认为：争议商标由中文“拉菲庄园”构成,其显著识别部分为“拉菲”,引证商标由外文文字“LAFITE”构成,争议商标与引证商标的标识在字形、读音等方面存在较大差异。从拉菲酒庄提交的证据看,难以认定引证商标在争议商标申请日之前,已经在中国大陆地区具有市场知名度,相关公众已经能够将引证商标与“拉菲”进行对应性识别。因此，争议商标与引证商标不构成近似商标。争议商标的注册和使用长达十年之久,其已经形成稳定的市场秩序,从维护已经形成和稳定的市场秩序考虑,本案争议商标的注册应予维持。一审判决及第55856号裁定对此认定错误,二审法院予以纠正。判决：金色希望公司的相关上诉理由成立,予以支持。
Golden Hope Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The Court held that the disputed trademark consists of the Chinese word “Lafite Manor”, and its distinctive part is “Lafite”. The reference trademark is composed of the foreign language “LAFITE”. There are more differences between the disputed trademark and the reference trademark is in the shape and pronunciation. Judging from the evidence submitted by Lafite Winery, it is difficult to determine that the reference trademark has already got market popularity in mainland China before the filing date of disputed trademark, and the relevant public has been able to identify the reference trademark with “Lafite”. Therefore, the disputed trademark does not constitute approximate trademark with the reference trademark. The registration and use of the disputed trademarks is over ten years, so a stable distinguished market formed. The registration of disputed trademarks in this case should be maintained in consideration of maintaining the established stable market. The judgment of the first instance and the decision of No. 55856 were found to be wrong, and should be corrected. Golden Hope's appeal are established and granted.
拉菲酒庄申请再审称, 在案证据足以证明在争议商标申请日前,引证商标已经在中国境内使用并具有较高知名度，“拉菲”作为“LAFITE”的音译已经与“LAFITE”及拉菲酒庄建立起一种被公众广泛理解的、明确的、稳定的对应关系，议商标与引证商标的音译“拉菲”完全相同,相同商品上、高度近似的两个商标,必然造成混淆、误认。
Lafite Winery applied for a retrial, saying that the evidence in the case is sufficient to prove that the trademark has been used in China and has a high reputation before the disputed trademark application date. The translation of “Lafite” as “拉菲” has been combined with “LAFITE” and established a clear and stable correspondence with Lafite Winery which is widely recognized by the public. The transliteration of the trademark and the reference trademark “拉菲” is exactly on the same goods and high similarity which is inevitably cause the likelihood of confusion.
终审判决认定：
本院再审认为,本案的争议焦点问题是:争议商标与引证商标是否构成商标法第二十八条规定的近似商标。
认定商标是否近似,既要考虑商标构成要素及其整体的近似程度,也要考虑相关商标的显著性和知名度、所使用商品的关联程度等因素,以是否容易导致混淆作为判断标准。
The opinion of the Supreme Court.
The court rereviewed that the issue in this case is whether the disputed trademark and the reference trademark constitute an approximate trademark as stipulated in Article 28 of the Trademark Law.
To determine whether the trademark is similar, it is necessary to consider the degree of similarity of the trademark’s elements and the whole, and also consider the factors such as the distinctiveness and popularity of the relevant trademarks, the degree of association of the goods used, and others. The criterion is likelihood of confusion.
争议商标由中文文字“拉菲庄园”构成,“庄园”用在葡萄酒类别上显著性较弱,“拉菲”系争议商标的主要部分。本案现有证据足以证明“LAFITE”在诉争争议商标申请日前在我国具有较高的知名度、为相关公众所知悉,我国相关公众通常以“拉菲”指代再审申请人“LAFITE”商标,并且“拉菲”已经与再审申请人“LAFITE”商标之间形成了稳定的对应关系,由于拉菲已经成为“LAFITE”的音译并形成了稳固的联系,争议商标与引证商标构成近似商标。
The disputed trademark is composed of the Chinese word “Lafite Manor”. The word “manor” has a weak distinctiveness used in the wine goods. “Lafite” is the main part of the disputed trademark design. The existing evidence in this case is sufficient to prove that “LAFITE” has a high reputation in China before the filing date of the disputed trademark, and is well known to the relevant public. The relevant public in China usually refers to the “LAFITE” trademark of the applicant by “拉菲”. “拉菲” was formed a stable correspondence with the trademark “LAFITE” of the petitioner. Since “拉菲” has become a transliteration of “LAFITE” and formed a fixed connection, the disputed trademark constitutes an similar trademark with the reference trademark.
商标评审委员会第55856号裁定关于“作为经营葡萄酒商品的同行业竞争者,金色希望公司理应知晓拉菲酒庄及其商标的使用情况,应有合理避让,却仍在葡萄酒等类似商品上注册了引证商标对应的中文译法‘拉菲特’‘拉斐’‘拉菲’相近的争议商标,其行为难谓正当。因此,争议商标已经与引证商标构成类似商品上的近似商标,其注册使用易使消费者认为其所标示的产品来自拉菲酒庄或与拉菲酒庄存在某种关联的企业,违反了商标法第二十八条的规定”认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,一审判决对其予以维持适用法律正确,本院予以维持。二审法院认定争议商标不应予以撤销没有事实和法律依据,本院予以纠正。
The No. 55856 decision of Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that “as a competitor in the same industry, Golden Hope Company should be aware of the prior use of Lafite Winery and its trademarks, and should reasonably avoid the confliction. It is not legitimate to file the application of the Chinese translation words on the identical goods such as wine. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted the similar trademark on the same goods with the reference trademark, and its registration and use can make it easy for the consumers to believe that the product is from Lafite Winery or has some kind of association with Lafite Winery. Then it is violated Article 28 of the Trademark Law. The disputed trademark is revoked.
The facts are clear, the applicable law is correct.
Reversed.
Comments
拉菲商标的保护问题主要是近似商标认定标准问题。在中国商标法的规定中，商标近似的判断标准时容易产生混淆和误认的可能性。具体的考虑因素有商标的近似程度，商品的类似程度，请求保护的商标的显著性和知名度情况。由于商标近似的判断问题在很大程度上存在主观判断的问题，特别是消费者调查的证据在中国的司法审判中的证明力非常有限，所以，对于商标是否构成近似的问题，不同的行政机构或者法院之间都存在不同的主观认识。
为了解决商标混淆误认判断标准不统一的法律问题，我们建议权利人要充分的举证来证明包括但不限于上述法律因素的证据，例如增加提交争议商标申请人主观恶意的证据，增加相关的公众将两件商标已经造成实际混淆误认的证据，争议商标申请人和引证商标权利人的行业可能存在交叉重合的证据等等，这些事实和证据并没有明确的体现在商标法律法规的规定上，但是在实际的司法案例中均有类似的判例予以适用。
The protection of the Lafite trademark is mainly related to the issue of trademark recognition standards. In the provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law, the possibility of confusion and misrecognition is easily caused by the judgment criteria of trademark approximation. The specific considerations are the degree of approximation of the trademark, the degree of similarity of the commodity, and the significance and popularity of the trademark being claimed. Due to the problem of subjective judgment of trademark approximation, there is a large problem of subjective judgment. In particular, the evidence of consumer investigation is very limited in the judicial trial in China. Therefore, different administrative agencies are concerned about whether trademarks are similar. Or there are different subjective perceptions between courts.
In order to solve the legal problem of inconsistent judgment standards for trademark confusion and misunderstanding, we recommend that the right holder should fully prove the evidence including but not limited to the above legal factors, such as increasing the evidence of the subjective malice of the applicant who submitted the disputed trademark, and increasing the relevant public. Evidence that the two trademarks have caused actual confusion and misunderstanding, the disputed trademark applicant and the cited trademark owner may have evidence of cross-coincidence, etc. These facts and evidence are not clearly reflected in the provisions of trademark laws and regulations. However, similar jurisprudence applies in actual judicial cases.
