1、商標生態系統全球視角解讀商標侵權、技術需求及商標研究的演變目錄3綜述5重要發現6商標生態系統概覽10侵權行為持續增長13流程改進：技術及其他15結論 綜述在當今的全球商業環境中， 競爭已趨白熱化如今， 全球企業正在一個快速變化的國際舞臺上激烈競爭， 對他們產生影響的不僅有法律和政治因素以及轉型變化中的經濟體， 先進技術的普及與融合帶來的影響也不容忽視。 對于商標行業來說， 業務轉型正在進一步重塑行業格局。 越來越多的新來者進入這一市場， 整合、 并購等動作也愈加活躍。 商標領域這種活躍度的提高以及市場的發展演化表明， 知識產權 （IP） 的價值正在不斷提高， 相應的對知識產權的投資也是水漲船高

2、。在這樣一個不斷變化的動態環境中， 企業需要利用一切可用的工具來提高競爭力，鞏固市場地位。 這些工具就包括各種形式的知識產權， 商標的注冊和保護也是其中之一， 能夠為企業未來的發展奠定基礎， 有助于建立品牌形象， 兌現企業對客戶、 合作伙伴和潛在客戶的承諾。重要性顯而易見， 然而在當前環境下， 開發、 注冊和保護一個獨一無二的商標變得越來越難。 如今， 商標申請數量比以往任何時候都多。 根據世界知識產權組織 （WIPO）的數據， 2018 年的商標申請共1,100萬件， 涵蓋類別達1,430萬個， 同比2017年增長15.5%。這也是商標申請量連續第九年增長1。 在這樣的增長中， 中國的貢獻最

3、大， 大多數新商標 （740 萬件） 來自中國2。1 www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2019/article_0012.html2 www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2019/article_0012.html3全球有效商標數量接近 8,300 萬件，因此，開發獨一無二的新品牌在時間和預算上的壓力可想而知從總體數量上看， 全球范圍內的有效商標總數已達8,290萬件 （數據來自SAEGIS on SERION全球商標數據庫） 。 并且， 隨著越來越多的商標進入市場， 商標申請的復雜性日益提高， 面臨的挑戰也日趨嚴峻。傳統

4、商標也在發生變化。 我們看到， 投機式的商標申請越來越多， 這恰好從側面印證了知識產權的價值。 例如， 美國名人企業家凱莉詹娜最近為 “rise and shine” 這個短語提交了商標申請， NBA 球星勒布朗詹姆斯也曾試圖為 “Taco Tuesday” 申請商標。 盡管后者已被美國專利商標局 （USPTO） 否決3，但這些事件表明商標申請格局正在發生演變。如此體量的商標申請和有效商標不僅對新商標的成功注冊是一種挑戰， 而且也使現有商標的保護困難重重。 商標和商標申請的數量越多， 發生侵權的風險就越大， 也就意味著需要投入更多時間和金錢來保護商標組合。 從現實和經濟的角度來看， 許多擁有大

5、量商標組合的企業不可能實時在所有渠道上監測所有商標。 但是， 這并不意味著品牌保護不重要。 相反， 這正好說明， 整個商標管理流程從始至終都需要精簡化、 高效化， 并根據商標組合的規模適當擴展或收縮， 這樣才能最大程度為整個商標組合提供保護。商標專業人士擁有大量工具和技術， 可以在工作中助他們一臂之力。 此外， 他們還會與知識產權律師事務所、 第三方提供商等專家合作， 借助這些專家的專業知識和工具促進整個商標生態系統的健康發展。為了更深入了解商標專業人士的做法、 觀點和經驗， 科睿唯安CompuMark事業部委托開展了一項獨立調研， 對商標生態系統進行研究。 這項研究由獨立調查公司Vitreo

6、us World完成， 調研對象為來自五個國家的351名商標專業人士， 他們任職企業內部法律顧問或外部商標律師。3 iling-120039211.html 039211.htm4重要發現技術在商標管理流程中繼續發揮主導作用商標專業人士對新工具和新技術的需求日漸迫切。 在商標研究和保護方面， 技術被認為是最需要加強的因素 （49%的調查對象選擇該項） 。另外， 人工智能 （AI） 過去曾被認為可能對商標專業人士的工作構成威脅， 但如今也被視為一種可以改善商標管理流程各環節的方法， 尤其適合用于加快流程、 開展預測分析和任務自動化。商標申請活動依然活躍， 侵權行為也不斷增加盡管二者之間并無確證的

7、關聯， 但商標申請和侵權行為的確都呈現上升趨勢。 48%的調查對象表示， 今年申請的商標多于2018年 （31%的調查對象與 2018 年持平） 2019年， 85%的調查對象表示曾遭遇商標侵權， 而在2018年和2017年， 這一比例分別為81%和74% 侵權行為無處不在， 從企業名稱到社交媒體， 從網站域名到廣告宣傳， 廣泛涉及多個渠道侵權帶來的后果依然嚴重除了導致客戶困惑、 企業收益損失和品牌聲譽受損之外， 因侵權而導致的資金花費也十分高昂 46%的調查對象由于遭遇侵權而不得不變更品牌名稱 75%的調查對象表示對侵權提起過訴訟 40%的調查對象在侵權案件上的訴訟成本在50,000美元至2

8、49,999美元之間企業內部流程和觀念也在變化過去一年， 在商標名稱創建過程中， 商標專業人士與市場營銷等其他業務部門之間的合作越來越多。 培訓就是其中一種合作方式， 無論是正式培訓還是臨時起意； 30%的調查對象表示開展過此類的正式培訓。商標版圖正在擴大超過一半的調查對象表示， 他們在過去 12個月內申請的商標超過上一年， 而且令人意外的是， 78%的調查對象將工業品外觀設計納入了他們的商標申請策略。 5商標生態系統概覽商標在全球商業領域扮演著十分重要的角色。 無論初創公司還是市場上的成熟企業，商標的重要性不言而喻。 因此， 商標必須具有唯一性、 合法性而且必須受到保護， 這樣才能減輕風險并

9、實現商業價值最大化。 然而， 創新和變革的步伐之快卻為品牌和商標專業人士創造了一個充滿挑戰的環境。無論WIPO的數據還是本次調研均表明， 全球商標申請數量正在逐年增長。近半數 （48%） 的調查對象表示， 過去12個月申請的商標數量與上年相比有所增加， 31%的調查對象表示商標申請數量保持不變，21%的調查對象表示有所減少。來看具體數量： 在過去12個月， 40%的調查對象申請的商標數量為6-20件， 23%的調查對象申請的商標數量為21-50件， 9%的調查對象申請商標數量超過51件。 與 CompuMark于2018年的調研相比， 這些數字略有不同。商標數量增長的同時， 種類也有所變化檢索

10、和申請的商標在數量上無疑呈現出上升趨勢， 而行業內的其他變化也值得關注。其中比較明顯的是， 調查對象申請的商標在類型上發生了變化。例如， 圖形商標的申請量有所增加， 56%的調查對象表示， 他們在去年提交了更多圖形商標。圖 1. 全球商標申請量6Trademarks play an important role in global commerce, regardless of whether they are start-ups or well established in the marketplace. As a result, marks must be unique, in good

11、 legal standing, and must be protected in order to mitigate risk and maximize commercial value. However, the pace of innovation and change creates a challenging landscape in which both brands and trademark professionals operate.The number of trademarks filed globally keeps growing year-on-year accor

12、ding to WIPO and this is supported by the research.Nearly half of respondents (48%) say they filed more trademarks in the last 12 months than they did in the previous year, 31% filed the same number of marks, while just 21% say they filed fewer marks.These figures are placed into context considering

13、 the number of marks trademark professionals say they filed in the last 12 months. While 40% filed 6-20 marks, 23% filed 21-50 and 9% filed more than 51. This is a slightly different picture compared to CompuMark results from its 2018 research.More marks, different marksWhile there is certainly upwa

14、rd movement in the number of marks that are being searched and filed, there are also other changes within the industry. Notably, this is in the types of trademarks that are being filed. For example, there has been an increase in the filing of image marks, with 56% of respondents saying they filed mo

15、re in the last year. An overall view of the ecosystem0%10%20%30%40%50%51+21-506-201-5Figure 1. Trademarks filed globally申請商標數量62018 2019圖 2. 經過檢索的商標進行了檢索的商標比例進行了檢索的商標比例圖 3. 經過檢索的工業品外觀設計和圖形商標調查對象還表示，他們獨自清查商標時面臨著嚴峻的挑戰，其中包括：數據過多（49%）、時間不足（44%）、資源不足 （38%）以及沒有合適的工具和技術 （35%）令人意外的是， 調查對象還表示工業品外觀設計也在他們的商標申請

16、之列。 近八成 （78%） 的調查對象稱， 他們已將工業品外觀設計納入其商標申請策略， 而未將工業品外觀設計納入商標申請策略的調查對象則指出， 他們之所以沒有這樣做是因為需求不足 （45%） 或預算短缺 （33%） ?？捎眯耘c保護商標管理流程的最理想做法無疑是在提交商標申請之前， 申請人對所有商標先進行全面檢索和侵權篩查。 但實際上， 并非所有申請人每次都能做到這一點，尤其是在時間、 預算等資源不足的情況下。當問及有多少商標在提交申請之前經過檢索， 只有29%的調查對象表示， 他們對超過四分之三的擬申請商標進行過檢索。 大多數調查對象表示， 他們僅對26%-50%的商標進行過檢索。同樣， 今年

17、的結果與去年相比也有一些差異， 尤其是檢索商標比例最低和最高的調查結果。 去年， 只有20%的調查對象曾對其76%或以上的商標進行過檢索， 今年， 這一比例提高至29%。 2018年， 13%的調查對象對1%-25%的商標進行過檢索， 而在2019年，這一比例下降至9%。商標檢索和篩查當然不是一個容易完成的任務， 因為有許多限制因素需要克服， 例如資源方面的壓力， 尤其是內部資源。 將近一半的 （47%） 調查對象在沒有外部幫助的情況下獨自進行商標清查， 他們為此花費的時間為6-10小時。 鑒于這些工作的費用情況， 商標專業人士不得不在資源方面進行權衡。 調查對象還表示， 他們獨自清查商標時面

18、臨著嚴峻的挑戰， 其中包括： 數據過多（49%） 、 時間不足 （44%） 、 資源不足 （38%） 以及沒有合適的工具和技術 （35%） 。至于工業品外觀設計和圖形商標， 大部分商標專業人士的檢索比例在26%-50%之間。7Surprisingly, respondents also say they are filing industrial designs. Nearly eight in 10 (78%) of trademark professionals say they have included industrial designs into their filing stra

19、tegy, while those that dont say it is due to lack of demand (45%) or budget (33%),Availability and protectionBest practice certainly dictates that all trademarks should be thoroughly searched before filing. However, practically it is not always possible, especially when resources like time and budge

20、t are in short supply. When asked about how many trademarks they searched before filing, just 29% say they search more than three quarters of marks. Most respondents say they search between 26-50% of marks.Again, compared to the same result from last year, there are some differences, particularly wh

21、en it comes to the least and most searched. Last year just 20% searched 76% or more of their marks, which has risen to 29%. In 2018, 13% searched 1-25% of marks, while in 2019, this has dropped to 9%.This is certainly not an easy task; with many factors to contend with, such as pressure on resources

22、, especially in-house. Nearly half of respondents (47%) that clear marks on their own, with no outside help, say they spend between six to 10 hours. Considering that these could be billable hours, trademark professionals have to determine resource trade-offs. Respondents also say they face significa

23、nt challenges when clearing a mark on their own; these include the fact that there is too much data (49%), not enough time (44%), not enough resources (38%) and not . )%53 ( se i go l onhce t dna s l oot t hg i r eht gn i vahWhen it comes to how trademark professionals search industrial designs and

24、image marks, the majority search between 26-50%. Respondents also say they face significant challenges when clearing a mark on their own; these include the fact that there is too much data (49%), not enough time (44%), not enough resources (38%) and not having the right tools and technologies (35%).

25、0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%76+51-7526-501-250%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%76+51-7526-501-25Figure 2. Marks searchedFigure 3. Industrial designs and image marks searched7Surprisingly, respondents also say they are filing industrial designs. Nearly eight in 10 (78%) of trademark professionals say they have i

26、ncluded industrial designs into their filing strategy, while those that dont say it is due to lack of demand (45%) or budget (33%),Availability and protectionBest practice certainly dictates that all trademarks should be thoroughly searched before filing. However, practically it is not always possib

27、le, especially when resources like time and budget are in short supply. When asked about how many trademarks they searched before filing, just 29% say they search more than three quarters of marks. Most respondents say they search between 26-50% of marks.Again, compared to the same result from last

28、year, there are some differences, particularly when it comes to the least and most searched. Last year just 20% searched 76% or more of their marks, which has risen to 29%. In 2018, 13% searched 1-25% of marks, while in 2019, this has dropped to 9%.This is certainly not an easy task; with many facto

29、rs to contend with, such as pressure on resources, especially in-house. Nearly half of respondents (47%) that clear marks on their own, with no outside help, say they spend between six to 10 hours. Considering that these could be billable hours, trademark professionals have to determine resource tra

30、de-offs. Respondents also say they face significant challenges when clearing a mark on their own; these include the fact that there is too much data (49%), not enough time (44%), not enough resources (38%) and not . )%53 ( se i go l onhce t dna s l oot t hg i r eht gn i vahWhen it comes to how trade

31、mark professionals search industrial designs and image marks, the majority search between 26-50%. Respondents also say they face significant challenges when clearing a mark on their own; these include the fact that there is too much data (49%), not enough time (44%), not enough resources (38%) and n

32、ot having the right tools and technologies (35%).0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%76+51-7526-501-250%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%76+51-7526-501-25工業品外觀設計 圖形商標72018 20198在得到上述檢索商標的數據之后， 我們還需了解商標專業人士如何作出這樣的決定， 以及他們根據哪些因素來選擇特定商標進行檢索， 這一點非常重要。 2019年， 影響檢索的主要因素是品牌總體投資， 28%的調查對象選擇了這個因素， 排在第二位和第三位的分別是預算 （22%） 和品牌等級 （18

33、%） 。 這個結果與2018年截然不同。2018年的調研表明， 預算是最重要的因素（28%） ， 其次是品牌投資 （25%） 和品牌預期收益 （19%） 。盡管具體比例在這兩年沒有顯著差異， 但預算不再是主要考慮因素， 這一點很值得考量。 原因可能是商標專業人士在這項工作中得到的預算增多， 也有可能僅僅是因為優先考慮總體投資更為重要。圖 4. 根據哪些因素優先選擇特定商標在申請前進行檢索而在選擇特定商標進行監測時， 優先考慮的因素則與選擇商標進行檢索時明顯不同。 2018年， 品牌預期收益是影響優先監測特定商標的主要因素， 而在2019年， 預算則成為主要因素。8Given the numbe

34、r of marks respondents say they search before filing, it is important to understand how they make those decisions and what influences which trademarks are searched. In 2019, the main factor influencing search was overall investment in brand, selected by 28% of respondents, followed by budget (22%) a

35、nd tier of brand (18%). This is rather different to 2018 results where budget was the most important factor (28%), followed by investment in the brand (25%) and anticipated revenue from the brand (19%). While the percentages dont differ significantly, it is interesting to note that budget is no long

36、er the main consideration. This could possibly be due to the fact that professionals are getting bigger budgets to get this done, or simply because prioritizing overall investment is more important.This prioritization is in sharp contrast to the way that trademark professionals prioritize which trad

37、emarks to watch. In 2018, it was anticipated revenue from the brand that influenced watch, while in 2019, it is budget. Figure 4. What influences which trademarks to search before filing20182019預算 （28%）品牌投資 （24%）品牌預期收益 （19%）8Given the number of marks respondents say they search before filing, it is

38、important to understand how they make those decisions and what influences which trademarks are searched. In 2019, the main factor influencing search was overall investment in brand, selected by 28% of respondents, followed by budget (22%) and tier of brand (18%). This is rather different to 2018 res

39、ults where budget was the most important factor (28%), followed by investment in the brand (25%) and anticipated revenue from the brand (19%). While the percentages dont differ significantly, it is interesting to note that budget is no longer the main consideration. This could possibly be due to the

40、 fact that professionals are getting bigger budgets to get this done, or simply because prioritizing overall investment is more important.This prioritization is in sharp contrast to the way that trademark professionals prioritize which trademarks to watch. In 2018, it was anticipated revenue from th

41、e brand that influenced watch, while in 2019, it is budget. 8Given the number of marks respondents say they search before filing, it is important to understand how they make those decisions and what influences which trademarks are searched. In 2019, the main factor influencing search was overall inv

42、estment in brand, selected by 28% of respondents, followed by budget (22%) and tier of brand (18%). This is rather different to 2018 results where budget was the most important factor (28%), followed by investment in the brand (25%) and anticipated revenue from the brand (19%). While the percentages

43、 dont differ significantly, it is interesting to note that budget is no longer the main consideration. This could possibly be due to the fact that professionals are getting bigger budgets to get this done, or simply because prioritizing overall investment is more important.This prioritization is in

44、sharp contrast to the way that trademark professionals prioritize which trademarks to watch. In 2018, it was anticipated revenue from the brand that influenced watch, while in 2019, it is budget. 20188Given the number of marks respondents say they search before filing, it is important to understand

45、how they make those decisions and what influences which trademarks are searched. In 2019, the main factor influencing search was overall investment in brand, selected by 28% of respondents, followed by budget (22%) and tier of brand (18%). This is rather different to 2018 results where budget was th

46、e most important factor (28%), followed by investment in the brand (25%) and anticipated revenue from the brand (19%). While the percentages dont differ significantly, it is interesting to note that budget is no longer the main consideration. This could possibly be due to the fact that professionals

47、 are getting bigger budgets to get this done, or simply because prioritizing overall investment is more important.This prioritization is in sharp contrast to the way that trademark professionals prioritize which trademarks to watch. In 2018, it was anticipated revenue from the brand that influenced

48、watch, while in 2019, it is budget. 品牌總體投資 （28%） 預算 （22%）品牌等級 （18%）8Given the number of marks respondents say they search before filing, it is important to understand how they make those decisions and what influences which trademarks are searched. In 2019, the main factor influencing search was over

49、all investment in brand, selected by 28% of respondents, followed by budget (22%) and tier of brand (18%). This is rather different to 2018 results where budget was the most important factor (28%), followed by investment in the brand (25%) and anticipated revenue from the brand (19%). While the perc

50、entages dont differ significantly, it is interesting to note that budget is no longer the main consideration. This could possibly be due to the fact that professionals are getting bigger budgets to get this done, or simply because prioritizing overall investment is more important.This prioritization

51、 is in sharp contrast to the way that trademark professionals prioritize which trademarks to watch. In 2018, it was anticipated revenue from the brand that influenced watch, while in 2019, it is budget. Figure 4. What influences which trademarks to search before filing201820198Given the number of ma

52、rks respondents say they search before filing, it is important to understand how they make those decisions and what influences which trademarks are searched. In 2019, the main factor influencing search was overall investment in brand, selected by 28% of respondents, followed by budget (22%) and tier

53、 of brand (18%). This is rather different to 2018 results where budget was the most important factor (28%), followed by investment in the brand (25%) and anticipated revenue from the brand (19%). While the percentages dont differ significantly, it is interesting to note that budget is no longer the

54、main consideration. This could possibly be due to the fact that professionals are getting bigger budgets to get this done, or simply because prioritizing overall investment is more important.This prioritization is in sharp contrast to the way that trademark professionals prioritize which trademarks

55、to watch. In 2018, it was anticipated revenue from the brand that influenced watch, while in 2019, it is budget. Figure 4. What influences which trademarks to search before filing20182019優先選擇要監測的商標時， 占比最高的幾個因素如下：盡管影響監測的具體因素與去年相比有所變化， 但是， 被監測商標的數量大體不變。其中， 大部分 （37%） 調查對象對其26%-50%的商標進行監測。圖 5. 根據哪些因素優先選

56、擇要監測的商標圖 6. 有多少商標得到監測？品牌預期收益 （23%） 品牌投資 （22%）預算 （21%）預算 （22%）品牌總體投資 （21%）預期收入 （21%）9This is the full picture when it comes to prioritizing watch services:While the factors that influence watch have changed from last year, the number of marks being watched has not. The figures have remained the same,

57、 with the majority (37%) of respondents watching 26-50% of their existing marks.201820190%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%76+51-7526-501-25Figure 6. How many trademarks are being watched?9This is the full picture when it comes to prioritizing watch services:While the factors that influence watch have changed

58、 from last year, the number of marks being watched has not. The figures have remained the same, with the majority (37%) of respondents watching 26-50% of their existing marks.Figure 5. What influences which trademarks to watch201820199This is the full picture when it comes to prioritizing watch serv

59、ices:While the factors that influence watch have changed from last year, the number of marks being watched has not. The figures have remained the same, with the majority (37%) of respondents watching 26-50% of their existing marks.Figure 5. What influences which trademarks to watch201820190%5%10%15%

60、20%25%30%35%40%76+51-7526-501-25Figure 6. How many trademarks are being watched?2018 2019監測商標比例92018 2019侵權行為持續增長一方面， 企業缺乏有效檢索和監測全部商標所需的時間和資源； 另一方面， 侵權行為仍然層出不窮。 只要瀏覽新聞， 這種感覺就會更加強烈。 2019年10月， California Wine Company訴稱 Applebee的 “VAMPIRE” 雞尾酒侵犯了該公司的 “VAMPIRE” 商標4。 Riot Games也曾起訴Riot Squad侵犯其商標權，稱Riot

61、Squad故意在名稱中使用 “Riot” ， 有意誤導粉絲認為兩個品牌之間存在某種關系5。在本次調研中， 侵權行為不斷增加的趨勢尤其明顯。 2017年， 74%的商標專業人士遭遇過侵權。 2018年， 這一比例提高至81%， 而在今年的調研中， 比例已高達85%。 短短兩年間， 增長率就達到15%， 呈現出一種明顯的上升態勢。調查對象遭遇侵權的次數也體現出這種上升趨勢。 近四成調查對象表示， 他們遭遇過1-10起侵權， 而30%的調查對象則表示遭遇過11-30起侵權。 10Despite the lack of time and resources to effectively search

62、and watch all trademarks, the fact remains that infringement is on the rise. A glance at the news headlines certainly reinforces this sentiment; in October 2019 California Wine Company filed a complaint that Applebees VAMPIRE cocktail is infringing on its own VAMPIRE trademark4. A similar case saw R

63、iot Games sue Riot Squad for trademark infringement, saying Riot Squad was intentionally using Riots name to infer a relationship between the two brands to fans5.The research highlights a growing trend in infringement. In 2017, 74% of trademark professionals experienced infringement. This increased

64、to 81% in 2018, and now in the latest research has hit a high of 85%. In just two years, there has been a 15% increase, signaling a definite upward trend. This increase can also be seen in the number of cases reported by respondents. Nearly four in 10 report they experienced between 1-10 instances o

65、f infringement, while 30% experienced between 11-30. Infringement continues to rise 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%50+31-5011-301-104 5 7. 侵權事件侵權比例102018年調研得到的數字與2019年得到的數字基本一致， 只有遭遇侵權31-50起的比例有所不同： 2018年， 有7%的調查對象遭遇過31-50起侵權事件， 而 2019年這一比例上升至12%。這種上升與商標專業人士的感受是契合的。 超過四成 （43%） 的調查對象認為侵權事件在過去兩年中有所增加， 而37%的

66、調查對象認為過去兩年侵權事件的數量沒有變化。 這不僅體現了侵權威脅的嚴重性， 而且還表明， 侵權為品牌帶來的后果仍然是他們需要應對的主要問題。此外， 本次研究還顯示， 侵權行為涉及多個渠道。 調查對象遭遇侵權的渠道主要有： 企業名稱 （44%） 、 網站域名 （44%） 、 社交媒體 （38%） 、 網絡經營 （38%） 和廣告宣傳（34%） 。侵權的影響不僅企業遭遇商標侵權事件的數量令人擔憂， 總成本濫用帶來的后果也極其嚴重。 無論是客戶信任度降低還是營收損失， 侵權導致的后果均有據可查。 在本次調研中， 商標專業人士指出了侵權行為導致的四種主要后果， 即導致客戶困惑、 營收損失、 品牌聲譽

67、受損以及客戶信任度和忠誠度下降。該結果與 CompuMark在2018年調研的結果一致：11The figures from the 2018 research are in line with the new research, except where respondents reported 31-50 cases; in 2018 7% experienced 31-50 cases, while in 2019 this figure rose to 12%.This rise is reflected in perception too. More than four in 10

68、(43%) trademark professionals say they believe infringement has increased over the last two years, while 37% say they believe cases of infringement remained the same during the period. This demonstrates the severity of the threat and the fact that the consequences for brands remain a major issue tha

69、t they need to contend with.Additionally, the research highlights that infringement is taking place across channels. Respondents experienced infringement across business name (44%), web domains (44%), social media (38%), online marketplaces (38%), and advertising campaigns (34%). The cost of infring

70、ementIt is not just the number of instances of trademark infringement that organizations face that is concerning, but the overall cost of that abuse. The consequences of infringement are well documented; from loss of customer trust to loss of revenue. Trademark professionals in the research identifi

71、ed four key areas that infringement had an effect on, namely customer confusion, loss of revenue, damage to brand reputation and reduced customer trust and loyalty.These remain aligned to the 2018 CompuMark research:0%10%20%30%40%50%60%圖 8. 侵權造成的影響2018 2019導致客戶困惑營收損失品牌聲譽受損客戶忠誠度和信任度降低11不僅如此， 企業還會因遭遇商

72、標侵權而直接面臨其他問題， 這些都會在上述四個方面造成影響。 尤其是， 75%的調查對象曾因遭遇侵權而提起訴訟。 法律訴訟不僅是一條昂貴的維權途徑， 而且會在品牌宣傳以及客戶和市場對品牌的認知方面產生更廣泛的影響。事實上， 當被問及企業在其最困難的侵權訴訟案中花費如何時， 47%的調查對象表示， 他們在這樣的案件中訴訟成本最高為50,000美元。 另外， 40%的調查對象表示訴訟成本在50,000-249,999美元之間。 雖然有些訴訟案件會以和解告終， 例如備受矚目的Burberry訴 Target案6 和Adidas America訴Skechers USA案7， 但也可能導致付出更高昂的

73、代價。除付諸法律之外， 46% 的商標專業人士稱，他們所在的企業因遭遇侵權而不得不更換品牌名稱。與2018年的30%相比， 今年的這一比例明顯升高。 與采取法律手段一樣， 更換品牌名稱造成的影響范圍也極為廣泛， 包括對成本、聲譽和客戶信任度的影響。 例如， 視企業投放新品牌的渠道而定， 更換名稱給企業帶來的影響可能是毀滅性的， 會影響網站設計、 廣告宣傳、 包裝、 徽標等方方面面。 無論是全球性的品牌還是本地企業， 都會因為更換名稱受到影響。美國丹佛的一家咖啡和果汁店 “Sol Kitchen”就是一個典型的例子。 在開始營業后不久，Sol Kitchen就被亞利桑那州的一家餐館經營者起訴，

74、聲稱Sol Kitchen侵犯了其商標權，因為Sol Kitchen與這家餐館的Sol Cocina品牌沖突 （在西班牙語中，“cocina” 的意思就是廚房， 即 “kitchen” ） 。 Sol Kitchen的所有者已經在網站和徽標設計方面投入了10,000美元， 但最后卻只能以更名收場8。12However, there are other tangible concerns that organizations experience as a direct result of trademark infringement, all of which affect the four

75、elements listed above. Specifically, 75% have started litigation as a result of infringement. This is a costly avenue and impacts on the wider business in terms of publicity, how customers and the market perceive the brand. In fact, 47% of respondents say their organization spent up to $50,000 on li

76、tigation in their most challenging infringement litigation. Additionally, 40% spent between $50,000 - $249,999. While lawsuits may be settled amicably, such as in the well-publicized case of Burberry versus Target6, or Adidas America versus Skechers USA7, it can also lead to more costly conclusions.

77、 Apart from litigation, 46% of trademark professionals say their organization had to change a brand name as a result of infringement. This figure is up significantly from 2018 where 30% had to resort to this measure. Again, changing a brand name has wide-reaching implications, including cost, reputa

78、tional damage and customer trust. Depending on where the organization is in launching a new brand, for example, changing the name can be devastating and affects everything from website design and advertising, to packaging and logos. This affects everyone from global brands to local businesses.A case

79、 in point is Sol Kitchen, a coffee and juice bar, that opened in Denver. Soon after opening its doors, the business was sued for trademark infringement by an Arizona-based restaurant operator that said it conflicted with its Sol Cocina brand (cocina meaning kitchen in Spanish). The owners of Sol Kit

80、chen already invested $10,000 in website and logo design but had to rebrand8. 6www.lawyer- 12雖然商標名稱創建、 清查和申請是商標管理流程的重要環節， 但其他一些因素也需要考慮。 從流程整體來看， 今年的調研明確顯示， 技術在整個流程中繼續發揮重要作用。近半數 （49%） 的商標專業人士表示， 技術是改進商標研究和保護流程的主要方法之一。 其次是投入更多資源 （46%） 、 增加預算（45%） 、 花費更多時間 （40%） 和增進部門間的協作 （40%） 。 與去年相比， 這些要素的優先順序未發生改變。

81、當談及如何在商標研究過程中改進技術來提高效率時， 調查對象表示可以： 13While name creation, clearance and filing are important aspects of the trademark process, there are other elements to consider, too. Looking at the overall process itself, it is clear from this years research that technology continues to play a significant role t

82、hroughout.Nearly half of trademark professionals (49%) say that technology is one of the primary ways to improve both the research and protection process. This is followed by more resources (46%), bigger budgets (45%), more time (40%) and better collaboration between departments (40%). The prioritiz

83、ation of these elements is in line with last years results.When asked specifically about how technology in the research process could be improved to make the process more efficient, respondents say it could:Improving the process: technology and beyond50% 50%46%流程改進：技術及其他提供實時數據視圖加入更好的分析功能加入更好的報告功能131

84、4These results demonstrate both the appetite for more user-friendly technology, as well as the acknowledgement that there are definite enhancements that can be made. The appetite for the use of technology is also clearly demonstrated in attitudes toward the use of AI. While traditionally AI has been

85、 seen as a threat to trademark and IP professionals, the fact remains it has the power to automate time-intensive tasks, perform more quickly and bring new levels of accuracy to the process .This sentiment is reflected in the results. Respondents say AI would be most helpful in speeding up the trade

86、mark search and watch process, followed by the use of predictive analytics in helping with applications or case outcomes, and in performing redundant tasks. Back to the beginning: the naming process Choosing a unique name that encapsulates the brand values and identity is certainly a task that is be

87、coming more challenging. For the most part, this is left to marketing when they conceive ideas for products, solutions and campaigns. There can be different objectives between the marketing and legal teams, however, it appears that these groups are respective of these objectives and we see indicatio

88、ns that the teams are working more closely together. In the past there was little involvement from trademark professionals early in the name creation process and with a gap in knowledge around best practice with legal clearance in mind even if specific tools were used. When asked about collaboration

89、 during the naming process, 42% of respondents are integral to this naming process, while a further 41% are consulted on an ad-hoc basis. Reassuringly, only 15% say there is little collaboration between themselves and other departments. In addition, education seems to be a focus around the naming pr

90、ocess, too. Nearly a third of respondents (30%) say they have formalized training programs in place to help educate marketing, 24% have processes in place for working with brand owners, 22% have ad-hoc training in place, and 21% educate as they go.But there was also acknowledgement that the naming p

91、rocess could be improved in the areas of education and collaboration, as well as others. Technology was identified by 51% of respondents as one of the ways to make the naming process smoother, followed by better communication (47%), involvement of legal from the outset of name creation (41%), and ed

92、ucation for people creating the names (38%).42%46% 14These results demonstrate both the appetite for more user-friendly technology, as well as the acknowledgement that there are definite enhancements that can be made. The appetite for the use of technology is also clearly demonstrated in attitudes t

93、oward the use of AI. While traditionally AI has been seen as a threat to trademark and IP professionals, the fact remains it has the power to automate time-intensive tasks, perform more quickly and bring new levels of accuracy to the process .This sentiment is reflected in the results. Respondents s

94、ay AI would be most helpful in speeding up the trademark search and watch process, followed by the use of predictive analytics in helping with applications or case outcomes, and in performing redundant tasks. Back to the beginning: the naming process Choosing a unique name that encapsulates the bran

95、d values and identity is certainly a task that is becoming more challenging. For the most part, this is left to marketing when they conceive ideas for products, solutions and campaigns. There can be different objectives between the marketing and legal teams, however, it appears that these groups are

96、 respective of these objectives and we see indications that the teams are working more closely together. In the past there was little involvement from trademark professionals early in the name creation process and with a gap in knowledge around best practice with legal clearance in mind even if spec

97、ific tools were used. When asked about collaboration during the naming process, 42% of respondents are integral to this naming process, while a further 41% are consulted on an ad-hoc basis. Reassuringly, only 15% say there is little collaboration between themselves and other departments. In addition

98、, education seems to be a focus around the naming process, too. Nearly a third of respondents (30%) say they have formalized training programs in place to help educate marketing, 24% have processes in place for working with brand owners, 22% have ad-hoc training in place, and 21% educate as they go.

99、But there was also acknowledgement that the naming process could be improved in the areas of education and collaboration, as well as others. Technology was identified by 51% of respondents as one of the ways to make the naming process smoother, followed by better communication (47%), involvement of

100、legal from the outset of name creation (41%), and education for people creating the names (38%).改善非結構化數據提供對數據進行配置的功能這些結果既表明調查對象希望使用對用戶更加友好的技術， 也表明他們認為確實還有改進的空間。 調查對象對人工智能的態度也清楚表明了他們對使用技術的興趣。盡管在傳統觀念中， 人工智能一直被視為是對商標和知識產權專業人士的一種威脅， 但人工智能確實有能力自動完成耗時的任務、 提高執行速度并使整個流程的準確性更上一層樓。調研結果也體現出這種觀點。 調查對象表示， 人工智能在加

101、快商標檢索和監測流程方面幫助最大， 其次AI作用較大的是運用預測分析功能預測申請能否成功或案件結果， 以及完成大量重復、 繁瑣的工作?；氐狡瘘c： 商標名稱創建過程選擇一個能夠彰顯品牌價值和身份且獨一無二的名稱變得越來越困難。 在大多數情況下， 這一任務是交給營銷團隊， 他們負責構思和形成要在產品、 解決方案和宣傳活動中使用的名稱。 雖然營銷團隊和法務團隊可能目標不同， 但有跡象顯示， 這些團隊之間的合作日趨緊密。過去， 商標專業人士很少在早期就介入商標名稱創建過程， 而且， 即便借助了某些工具進行檢索和清查， 但在確保合法性的最理想操作方面， 不同團隊之間仍存在認識上的差距。在被問及商標名稱創

102、建過程中的協作情況時， 42%的調查對象表示自己是商標名稱創建過程中不可或缺的一部分， 而41%的調查對象則表示， 只是有人針對特定事項向自己進行過咨詢。 令人欣慰的是， 僅15%的調查對象表示他們幾乎沒有與其他部門有過這方面的合作。此外， 培訓似乎也成為商標名稱創建過程中的一個重點。 近三成調查對象 （30%） 表示， 他們為營銷團隊制定了正式的培訓計劃， 24%的調查對象有專門的流程用來與品牌所有者合作， 22%的調查對象設置了專項培訓計劃， 21%的調查對象會在有需要時隨時提供培訓。但是， 部分調查對象也承認， 在培訓、 合作以及其他方面， 商標名稱創建過程仍有改進空間。 在談及使這一過

103、程更加順暢的因素時， 51%的調查對象認為技術是最重要因素， 接下來分別是改善溝通 （47%） ，讓商標專業人士盡早參與商標名稱創建（41%） ， 以及為負責商標命名的人提供培訓（38%） 。結論隨著行業轉型的涉及面日漸拓寬， 加之市場不斷擴大， 立法、 政治和經濟環境瞬息萬變， 在這些因素的共同推動下， 企業需要與時俱進， 與大環境的變化保持同步， 尤其是市場變得日漸擁擠， 樹立獨具特色的品牌形象變得越來越難。 商標生態系統也在不斷演變， 這不僅體現在商標申請數量方面，還體現在商標類型方面。 設計一個獨一無二的商標本身就極具挑戰， 而隨著有效商標和商標申請數量的不斷增長， 如何保護現有商標權

104、不受侵犯也是一個必須面對的課題。 實際上， 侵權行為正在逐年穩步上升且波及各種渠道， 不再僅限于傳統的文字商標。隨著商標行業的不斷發展和知識產權價值的持續升高，商標專業人士也將從這樣的發展和行業加大的投資中獲益。 商標意識的提高和商標數量的增長意味著發生侵權的可能性也在增加。 展望未來， 商標專業人士和商標生態系統內的其他利益相關者可以利用他們掌握的工具和專業知識， 來開創最適合自己的道路來完成商標管理流程。方法論CompuMark委托獨立調查公司Vitreous World針對商標行業的現狀開展調研， 希望了解商標專業人士遭遇的商標侵權事件、應對侵權的經驗、 在商標管理流程中的實踐以及面臨的

105、挑戰。 該公司于2019年末， 對隨機抽取的來自英國、 美國、 德國、 意大利和法國的351名企業內部商標顧問和外部商標律師進行了在線訪談。關于 CompuMarkCompuMark 是科睿唯安旗下全球商標研究和保護的領先企業之一。 我們在全球擁有商標和品牌專家團隊， 通過覆蓋全球最廣的商標數據幫助客戶推出新商標， 進行商標拓展和保護， 我們能為客戶提供全球的商標篩查與監測、 專業分析， 以及最優的服務。 我們的主要產品包括： SAEGIS 商標數據篩查系統、 TM go365 商標清查平臺、全面的商標檢索和監測、 以及版權檢索。 更多信息， 請訪問?？祁Ｎò仓袊k公室北京海淀區科學院南路2號融科資訊中心C座北樓610單元郵編： 100190電話： +86-10 57601200傳真： +86-10 82862088郵箱： 網站： 2020 Clarivate Analytics. 科睿唯安CompuMark及其標識， 以及本文所用商標均為各自所有人之商標， 經許可使用。CompuMark全面的商標數據， 實現全球商標保護