What Does A Company Without Trademark Mean?

Whether the company can have no trademark, the answer is yes, no trademark, as long as it will not impact on the business of the company, it does not matter. The trademark itself is not necessary. The trademark law does not stipulate that the company must have a trademark, and the registered trademark itself is a voluntary act, without coercion.

And, if there is a trademark, if it is not registered, it can not be used. If you do not register with TM, the effect will be the same, so long as others are not registered, you can always use it without registering.

Some trademark agents, for business reasons, often mislead enterprises, saying that no registration is not able to play the TM logo. This is a wrong saying. No registration can be used TM, and now the trademark is also referring to the principle of prior use. If you do a good brand, even if you forget to register, then no one else will rush it, you can use it too, because you use it first, this is a change in the new trademark law.

But we still encourage.

In fact, a trademark does not cost much, but it can give you a lot of trouble. If there is any controversy on the trademark,

One, the guarantee is very large. This trademark law guarantees the legal effect.

In fact, some people in http://www.xsbu.com say that many companies have more than one trademark. Some companies register dozens of trademarks at once. Some may not use them. They are afraid that others will imitate their own registration and register some of them.

From here, we can also see some enterprises' attitude towards the brand.

Because trademark is the reason for brand.

A company without a trademark is a company without its own brand.

Related links:

The blatant violation of China's economic life and its naked power and money pactions began with the public relations of international pnational corporations. As early as the beginning of 1990s, the bribe doctors in the pharmaceutical industry were the copies created by foreign companies, and then became popular.

In recent ten years, the corruption and illegal activities of pnational corporations are becoming more and more intense. They are embodied in three aspects:

First, manipulating the media: Taking Danone company as an example, the public expenditure of Da Wa dispute in 2006 amounted to 80 million US dollars. I have seen a famous newspaper giant in the global investigation of Wahaha, and we must fight for the death of Zong Qing.

Second, the power of public relations: Danone also engage in power public relations, and to the highest level, French President Sarkozy brought danien chairman Li Bu to Beijing to find Hu Jintao to put pressure on illegal public relations, but they did not succeed.

The Apple Corp's power PR is out of the question. Finally, the Chinese authorities have put pressure on the litigants and forced the isolated Taiwanese businessmen to surrender, and have signed a reconciliation agreement which is seriously illegal.

Third, illegal advisors: Danone and apple are experts and scholars and retired officials, but the illegal advisers in Qualcomm antitrust case and Qualcomm trademark case really did the best.

In the case of antitrust, members of the expert committee of China's Anti Monopoly Committee are also willing to pay about 8000000 of the price. Are they not illegal public relations? No tax evasion or tax fraud? They should not carry out anti-corruption investigations. How much did they spend on public relations in order to settle the matter? The illegal consultant of trademark infringement is far from the truth. The deputy director of the retired Trademark Review Committee begins with all the officials of the industry and Commerce Bureau to demonstrate a technical problem that they know nothing about, and can get the conclusion that Ni Guangnan thought the absurd and unsurprising conclusion.

From this, we can deduce the ruling of common sense of the 38 kinds of trademarks against trademark law, and we can see the obstacles to China's rule of law.

Conclusion: the biggest destroyer of the rule of law in China in the past 20 years is not a private enterprise, but an international multinational company. These foreign companies that are proficient in the rule of law society have knowingly committed themselves, relying heavily on financial strength, distributing money publicly, raising the corrupt appetite of Chinese officials and law enforcers, and are the main culprits in China's social corruption and violation of laws and discipline.

Therefore, the high pass trademark infringement case is a severe test of China's new policy of governing the country according to law. The Chinese government and the Chinese court should have the courage to make a multinational company that has escaped the anti-monopoly sanctions under the support of the international community to pay $100 billion in behalf of the serious infringement of intellectual property rights, and take this case as an opportunity to fight corruption, thoroughly investigate the illegal public relations and corruption behavior of pnational corporations, and set a model for China to rule the country according to law.