(iii) The rightful owner of a registered trademark sues other parties for using its trademark (or the Chinese translation, or the imitation) as trade name or company name.
Even in the above three types of cases, the competent courts can only examine whether the claimed marks are well-known when absolutely necessary. In general, the courts consider it an absolutely necessary circumstance only when the well-known status is the single way of determining an infringement.
II. Cross-category protection should not be exaggerated blindly
According to the Interpretation, when the rightful owner of a registered trademark sues other parties for using its trademark on dissimilar goods or service, the court has to consider the relevance between the goods or service of both parties, and to what extent the relevant public purchasing or using the dissimilar goods or services knows the well-known trademark.
Furthermore, the level of protection afforded to a well-known mark shall be in compliance with the distinctiveness and the degree of the well-known status. In other words, the more distinctive and famous the trademark, the broader the protection will be given in respect to dissimilar goods and services. However, cross-category protection should not be exaggerated blindly in categories that are obviously unrelated.
III. Jurisdiction on the recognition of well-known trademark
Prior to the promulgation of the Interpretation, the Supreme Court issued a notice requiring all civil cases involving examination of well-known trademarks shall be heard by the intermediate courts in limited cities. Also, courts must immediately report to the Supreme Court for supervision and recordation once a well-known trademark is recognized and the verdict takes effect. These procedural regulations are expected to push the judges to examine more cautiously the evidence supporting the well-known trademarks.
