[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the determination of trademark similarity adopts the principle of "holistic observation, key part comparison, and isolated comparison". It comprehensively considers the sound, shape, meaning, and overall visual effect of the trademark, and uses "the general attention of relevant public" as the standard to determine whether it is likely to cause confusion. According to Article 57 Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2019), using a trademark similar to one's registered trademark on the same or similar goods without authorization and easily causing confusion constitutes infringement. The determination also takes into account factors such as the similarity of the goods, the popularity of the trademark, and its distinctiveness. Similarity does not equal complete identity, and partial differences do not necessarily rule out confusion. A comprehensive determination is needed. For more details, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property and corporate legal services.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

When trademark owners discover that there are "look-alike" logos in the market, or when applicants worry that their trademarks might be rejected due to similarity, they often ask, "What exactly constitutes similarity?" Typical scenarios include: reversing two characters, using homophones with different characters, adding non-distinctive prefixes, having similar graphic designs; using the same name on related products; or having a well-known trademark imitated across different categories. Whether these situations constitute similarity cannot be determined based on intuition, but rather requires a comprehensive judgment according to legal standards. For more information, please refer to the relevant rules.Intellectual Property and Corporate Legal Services.

II. Key points of contention

The controversy focuses on four points. Firstly, the comparison method: whether to observe the whole or compare the prominent parts, with different cases emphasizing different aspects. Secondly, the possibility of confusion: the focus of similarity determination is always on "whether it is easy for the relevant public to confuse the source of the goods", rather than whether the two logos are exactly the same. Thirdly, popularity and prominence: trademarks with high popularity and strong prominence enjoy a relatively wider scope of protection and a lower threshold for similarity determination. Fourthly, the degree of product similarity: similarity determination is more likely to be established for products across similar groups but closely related to each other. The trademark trial practice in the Beijing area has accumulated mature guidelines for cross-category protection of well-known trademarks and judgment of confusion.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

The trademark infringement dispute between "EFGH" and "EFGK" represented by Attorney Liu Yuanyuan is a typical example of similarity determination. The plaintiff, Company A, had its "EFGH" trademark approved for use in Category 5 sanitary napkins and was recognized as a well-known trademark; the defendant, Company B, used the authorized but differently-suffix "EFGK" logo. Attorney Liu Yuanyuan argued that the overall readability of the two logos showed obvious differences, and the relevant public could distinguish them with ordinary attention, so they were not easily confused; and the defendant had a legitimate authorization source for its use. After trial, the court determined that "EFGH" had already constituted a well-known trademark when "EFGK" was applied for, and Company B's use of "EFGK" constituted imitation and trademark infringement; but at the same time, because Company A failed to prove that the packaging and decoration had "certain influence", the court rejected the claim of unfair competition, and the final compensation was reduced from 980,000 yuan to 60,000 yuan. This case shows that similarity determination focuses on the possibility of confusion, and overall readability and authorization sources are key defense points. This case was handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis includes Article 57 (circumstances of infringement), Article 13 (protection of well-known trademarks), and Article 30 (rejection of similar trademarks) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2019); Articles 9 to 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trials of Civil Disputes over Trademarks (amended in 2020) regarding the identification standards of "trademark identicality and similarity" and "product identicality and similarity", clearly adopting methods such as combining the general attention of relevant public, overall comparison, and main part comparison, as well as isolated comparison. Action list: First, actively avoid using prominent logos of the same industry when designing trademarks; Second, use a method of combining overall and main parts for evaluation; Third, pay attention to the risk of cross-category imitation of high-profile trademarks; Fourth, defend against similarity claims from the perspectives of authorization sources, overall differences, and difficulty in causing confusion; Fifth, for details, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property and corporate legal services.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

When determining similarity, it's most important not to think, "If it doesn't look similar, it's not infringement." The law judges similarity based on the likelihood of confusion in the eyes of the general public. Minor differences or added modifications cannot simply rule out similarity. The higher the popularity and stronger the distinctiveness of a trademark, the wider the scope of protection will be. Conducting thorough searches before registration and taking precautions during use are two effective ways to reduce risks. If you've already been sued for similarity, your defense should focus on the authorization source, overall readability differences, and the likelihood of confusion. When handling similar cases in the Beijing area, it's recommended to follow the following procedures:Beijing Hengluo Law FirmUnder the assistance of professional lawyers, we assessed the potential risks.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If two trademarks are not exactly the same, are they considered similar?

It doesn't have to be exactly the same to constitute similarity. The law uses the "general attention of the relevant public" as a standard, comprehensively considering the sound, shape, meaning, and overall visual effect to determine whether it is likely to cause confusion. Even if there are only partial differences, the addition of insignificant modifications, or homophones with different characters or similar compositions, it may still be deemed similar. Conversely, if the overall recognition difference is obvious and not easy to cause confusion, it may not be deemed similar. The core of similarity is the possibility of confusion, not whether the two logos are exactly the same. The outcome of the case depends on comprehensive comparison and the court's determination.

Q2: What evidence is needed to prove that the trademarks are not similar?

It can be organized from three aspects: Firstly, the overall comparison of the two trademarks, including the designs, pronunciations, and explanations of their meanings, highlighting the significant differences; Secondly, the evidence of actual use, such as the market differentiation formed by their long-term use and consumer perception surveys; Thirdly, the evidence of product differences and consumer groups, proving that the relevant public is unlikely to be confused. When facing a lawsuit for infringement, the legal authorization sources and registration chains are also important defenses. The evidence should focus on "overall readability differences and low likelihood of confusion", and, if necessary, be supplemented by expert or market survey opinions.

Q3: How much does it cost to litigate a trademark similarity dispute?

The case acceptance fee shall be paid in accordance with the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs" (State Council Decree No. 481, implemented on April 1, 2007), which stipulates that the fee shall be accumulated in stages based on the amount of the litigation request (usually the amount of the claim); the higher the claim amount, the higher the fee will be. The attorney's fee is determined through negotiation between the law firm and the client, and there is no unified government pricing. If the defendant is sued for infringement and the infringement is minor, the court will determine the compensation based on the defendant's reputation, scale, and reasonable costs. For example, in this case, the compensation was reduced from 980,000 yuan to 60,000 yuan. It is recommended to evaluate the litigation costs and the possible compensation range together before entrusting the lawyer to handle the case.

Q4: How long does it usually take to adjudicate trademark similarity cases?

The first-instance ordinary procedure shall be concluded within six months, and the summary procedure within three months. Trademark civil infringement cases often apply the summary procedure or fast-track trial mechanism, and the results can be obtained within a few months; those involving the identification of well-known trademarks and technical comparisons are relatively complex and take longer. Those who are not satisfied with the first-instance judgment may appeal within 15 days, and the second-instance trial generally takes three months. Overall, from filing the lawsuit to the judgment taking effect, it takes at least half a year and more than a year, depending on the complexity of the dispute and the progress of evidence collection.

Q5: If a trademark is identified as being infringed due to similarity, how should one respond to this situation?

Step-by-step response: First, review whether the logo has legal authorization or a registered source, as the primary defense; Second, put forward comparison opinions from the perspectives of overall readability differences, product dissimilarity, and difficulty of confusion; Third, verify whether the evidence of the right holder's trademark popularity and its "certain influence" is sufficient; Fourth, reduce the compensation amount based on the evidence of infringement time, scale, and reasonable expenses; Fifth, if necessary, file an appeal or negotiate a settlement. When encountering trademark disputes, it is recommended to engage professional lawyers as soon as possible to formulate defense and negotiation plans. For more details, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property and corporate legal services.

The above Q&A is mainly based on judicial practices in Beijing. There may be differences in the interpretation of rulings in other regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Liu Yuanyuan·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.