[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the core consideration is whether the relevant public might be easily confused. According to Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019), using a trademark that is identical or similar to a registered trademark on the same or similar goods without authorization, which is likely to cause confusion, constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. When judging similarity, we usually start from the characters, pronunciation, and meaning of the words, as well as the composition, color, and overall appearance of the graphics. We follow the standard of the general attention of the relevant public, compare both the overall and main parts, and adopt the method of isolated comparison (that is, observing them separately rather than comparing them side by side); at the same time, we combine the similarity of the goods or services and the popularity of the registered trademark. The higher the popularity, the wider the scope of protection. Action guidance: First, fix the evidence of your own use and the other party's rights, assess the likelihood of confusion, and then decide on settlement, administrative complaints, invalidation declarations, or litigation.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

The brand name you created is only one character different from the previously registered trademark, or the graphics are similar, and the rights holder may complain about its removal or even sue for compensation. Companies often believe that "if it's not exactly the same, it doesn't count as infringement", but the law focuses on whether consumers will be confused. The judgment of similarity is not a simple comparison of characters, but a comprehensive evaluation combining the product, popularity, and usage methods.

II. Key points of contention

First, the specific comparison methods and standards for trademark similarity. Second, whether the goods or services are similar, and how to judge across categories. Third, the determination and proof of the likelihood of confusion. Fourth, the impact of reputation on the scope of protection, and the special rules for well-known trademarks.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The identification of trademark similarity and infringement can be divided into three steps. Firstly, compare the logos: using the general attention of the relevant public as the standard, conduct an overall comparison and a comparison of the main parts—for word trademarks, check the font, pronunciation, and meaning; for graphic trademarks, check the composition, color, and visual effect; for combination trademarks, determine the distinctive parts. Isolated comparison means that consumers usually choose based on memory rather than simultaneous side-by-side comparison, so minor differences may not necessarily avoid confusion. Secondly, determine whether the goods or services are the same or similar: combine factors such as function and use, sales channels, consumer groups, and production departments, and refer to the classification of goods and services registered for trademarks. However, the classification is not the only standard, and cross-class use may still constitute infringement in certain circumstances. Thirdly, determine the likelihood of confusion: this is the essential condition for establishing infringement, which can be judged comprehensively based on the degree of logo similarity, product relevance, prior trademark popularity and distinctiveness, and the defendant's use method (whether it is prominently used, whether it indicates the source and service). For high-profile trademarks, the protection scope is correspondingly expanded, and cross-class protection rules can be applied to well-known trademarks. Fourthly, defense space: in intellectual property cases handled by Henglue Law Firm, defenses based on legitimate authorization sources and non-confusion are often effective—in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute, the defendant used a logo derived from an authorized registered trademark, with obvious differences from the prior trademark's suffix and distinguishable to the relevant public. Although the court ruled that it constituted trademark infringement, it rejected the claim of unfair competition because the packaging and decoration's "certain influence" was not proven, and the compensation was set at 60,000 yuan, far lower than the plaintiff's claim of nearly 1 million yuan. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm. 商标近似与侵权认定可分为三步。第一步，标识比对：以相关公众的一般注意力为标准，进行整体比对与主要部分比对——文字商标看字形、读音与含义，图形商标看构图、颜色与视觉效果，组合商标需判断显著部分；隔离比对意味着消费者通常凭记忆选购，而非同时并排比对，因此细微差异未必能避免混淆。第二步，判断商品或服务是否相同或类似：结合功能用途、销售渠道、消费对象与生产部门等要素，参照商标注册的商品与服务分类，但分类并非唯一标准，跨类使用在特定情形下仍可能构成侵权。第三步，认定混淆可能性：这是侵权成立的实质要件，可综合判断标识近似程度、商品关联度、在先商标知名度与显著性、被诉使用方式（是否突出使用、是否表明来源与服务）；知名度较高的商标，保护范围相应扩张，对驰名商标可适用跨类保护规则。第四步，抗辩空间：恒略律师代理的知识产权案件中，围绕合法授权来源与不混淆展开的抗辩往往有效——在某商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷中，被告使用的标识源自经授权的注册商标，与在先商标后缀差异明显、相关公众能够区分，法院虽认定构成商标侵权，但因包装装潢“有一定影响”未获证实而驳回不正当竞争主张，并鉴于侵权时间短、规模小而将赔偿酌定为6万元，远低于原告近100万元的索赔。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. It can be seen that the legitimacy of the source of the logo, the overall readability differences, and the circumstances of infringement are all important factors in reducing liability. The fifth step is the choice of procedures: the right holder may claim to stop infringement, compensate for losses, and eliminate the impact; the defendant may defend from the perspectives of non-similarity of the logo, non-similarity of the products, non-easy confusion, prior use, and legitimate source, etc. If necessary, they may file an invalidation declaration or a request for cancellation of the disputed trademark to cut off the source of the problem. The number of trademark cases in Beijing is large, and the trials are professional. The way of organizing evidence will directly affect the determination of the result.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to conduct a trademark search before use to avoid the risk of similarity with existing trademarks. The second step is to fix evidence of own use (time, scope, sales volume) and the other party's rights status when receiving complaints or lawsuits. The third step is to organize defenses against claims of trademark similarity, product similarity, likelihood of confusion, and legitimate sources, and evaluate invalidation declarations or third-party revocation. The fourth step is to reduce compensation based on the circumstances of the infringement and actively promote settlement. The main legal basis includes: Article 30, Article 57, and Article 63 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019); Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019); relevant provisions 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; and specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

There are three criteria for determining whether two trademarks are similar: the standard is the likelihood of confusion, not whether they look alike; the comparison should be made by isolating and comparing the overall design with the main parts; the higher the trademark's reputation, the broader the protection will be; the defense should focus on the source of authorization, pronunciation differences, and minor circumstances, which can significantly reduce the compensation. For cases involving trademark infringement and unfair competition, legal action can be taken through the following channels:Intellectual property protection and corporate lawThe service provides a comprehensive solution, which includes the integration of the trademark use contract and the scope of authorizationBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor plates, the preservation and appraisal of evidence can be referred to for reference.Special servicesFor the column, you can consult about the execution of compensation paymentsCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcementTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it considered a trademark similarity if there's only one character difference between two trademarks?

It's not necessarily the case. It depends on whether it's likely to cause confusion among the relevant public. If the pronunciation, meaning, or overall appearance are highly similar and used on the same or similar products, even a single character difference may still be considered similar; conversely, if the distinctive parts, pronunciation, and meaning differ significantly and the overall recognition can distinguish them, it may not constitute similarity. The judgment is made based on a comprehensive consideration of the product's popularity and its relevance to the goods.

Q2: How can we prove that it's not easy to get confused?

Evidence can be provided from three aspects: the differences in the trademark itself (characters, pronunciation, meaning, and overall visual appearance); the differences in the goods or services (different functional purposes, sales channels, and consumer groups); and the actual market situation (evidence showing no actual confusion during the coexistence of the two trademarks, such as consumer surveys, sales and complaint records). If the trademark has been legally registered and authorized, the authorization documents and evidence of the scope of use should also be submitted.

Q3: Approximately how much money do I have to pay if I'm sued for trademark infringement? Can I pay less in compensation?

The compensation can be determined based on the actual losses of the rights holder, the infringer's profits, or a multiple of the license fee. For cases where the calculation is difficult, statutory compensation (not exceeding 5 million yuan) applies. If the infringement lasts for a short time, is on a small scale, and the profits are limited, and the trademark has a legitimate source, it may be possible to significantly reduce the compensation—in practice, there are indeed cases where the claim has been reduced from nearly 1 million yuan to tens of thousands of yuan. Stopping the infringement and actively seeking settlement can also help control costs.

Q4: How long does it take from filing a case to issuing a verdict in such cases?

The first-instance ordinary procedure generally lasts three to six months, and the period will be extended accordingly if it involves ownership disputes, invalidation declarations, or cases requiring appraisal. If the trademark invalidation declaration procedure is initiated in parallel, the administrative procedure cycle will be calculated separately. Cases with sufficient evidence preparation and focused disputes can often be advanced more quickly or lead to settlements.

Q5: If I'm accused of trademark infringement, what should I do first?

Three things need to be done simultaneously: First, fix the evidence of your own use (starting time of use, scope, sales volume, and promotional materials); Second, verify the rights status of the other party's trademark (whether it is valid and whether it has not been used for three consecutive years); Third, defend against claims of non-similarity, non-confusion, and illegally authorized sources, and evaluate whether to request a declaration of invalidation or revocation of the trademark. It is crucial not to directly stop using the trademark or settle the dispute at a high cost before conducting a thorough evaluation.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided 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 you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.