From a legal point of view, such a system would not go against the purpose of the Trademark Act to protect the interests of trademark holders and consumers. In theory, an agreement on the coexistence of trademarks in general will indicate the items of products (services), areas of sale and other such items of the parties and stipulate that the parties cannot do anything that would infringe trademark rights, which essentially limits the rights of the previous holder. On the basis of a concern for fairness, the interests of parties with a significant interest in the previous mark should be taken into account when implementing a co-existence agreement. In December 2014, we appealed to the Beijing Supreme People`s Court, stating that the Tribunal did not justify at first instance how the registration of our client, if authorized, would harm the interests of consumers of general faith. We have also sifted through previous cases and sanitized the use of a co-existence agreement to prove non-confusion and requested the application of the same standard to our case. The High Court issued its judgment in March 2015, rejecting the intermediate court`s ruling and TRAB`s decision to refuse, and asked TRAB to reconsider our client`s trademark application. Therefore, if the holder of the previous mark cited is considered to have clearly recognized and accepted such a registration, there should be no impedasing to obtaining the Class 7 registration authorization for the declaring trademark. A system for registering trademark co-existence agreements by former rights holders is a subject worth discussing. It is to be hoped that the modest opinions expressed in this column may draw serious attention to this subject. At the same time, in recent years, TRAB has also paid great attention to the review of the co-existence agreement. In 2007, the 24th meeting of the TRAB4 commission raised the issue and proposed a standard for scenario management in which the CTO rejects trademark registration on the grounds of similarity and the registrant submits a review for this refusal to traB. In this case, the co-existence agreement will provide general information for future cases where the brands are identical, but where the goods are different and where the parties involved are large companies with a certain reputation.
However, if the products do not differ between the fact that the parties concerned are small or ordinary businesses, the co-existence agreement is not in principle taken into account. TRAB found that it was not reasonable to completely ignore the co-existence agreement. However, TRAB believes that the protection of the interests of consumers should prevail, since this was the purpose of Article 28 (currently Article 30) of trademark law and trademark law as a whole.