1、商标生态系统全球视角解读商标侵权、技术需求及商标研究的演变目录3综述5重要发现6商标生态系统概览10侵权行为持续增长13流程改进：技术及其他15结论 综述在当今的全球商业环境中， 竞争已趋白热化如今， 全球企业正在一个快速变化的国际舞台上激烈竞争， 对他们产生影响的不仅有法律和政治因素以及转型变化中的经济体， 先进技术的普及与融合带来的影响也不容忽视。 对于商标行业来说， 业务转型正在进一步重塑行业格局。 越来越多的新来者进入这一市场， 整合、 并购等动作也愈加活跃。 商标领域这种活跃度的提高以及市场的发展演化表明， 知识产权 （IP） 的价值正在不断提高， 相应的对知识产权的投资也是水涨船高

2、。在这样一个不断变化的动态环境中， 企业需要利用一切可用的工具来提高竞争力，巩固市场地位。 这些工具就包括各种形式的知识产权， 商标的注册和保护也是其中之一， 能够为企业未来的发展奠定基础， 有助于建立品牌形象， 兑现企业对客户、 合作伙伴和潜在客户的承诺。重要性显而易见， 然而在当前环境下， 开发、 注册和保护一个独一无二的商标变得越来越难。 如今， 商标申请数量比以往任何时候都多。 根据世界知识产权组织 （WIPO）的数据， 2018 年的商标申请共1,100万件， 涵盖类别达1,430万个， 同比2017年增长15.5%。这也是商标申请量连续第九年增长1。 在这样的增长中， 中国的贡献最

3、大， 大多数新商标 （740 万件） 来自中国2。1 www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2019/article_0012.html2 www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2019/article_0012.html3全球有效商标数量接近 8,300 万件，因此，开发独一无二的新品牌在时间和预算上的压力可想而知从总体数量上看， 全球范围内的有效商标总数已达8,290万件 （数据来自SAEGIS on SERION全球商标数据库） 。 并且， 随着越来越多的商标进入市场， 商标申请的复杂性日益提高， 面临的挑战也日趋严峻。传统

4、商标也在发生变化。 我们看到， 投机式的商标申请越来越多， 这恰好从侧面印证了知识产权的价值。 例如， 美国名人企业家凯莉詹娜最近为 “rise and shine” 这个短语提交了商标申请， NBA 球星勒布朗詹姆斯也曾试图为 “Taco Tuesday” 申请商标。 尽管后者已被美国专利商标局 （USPTO） 否决3，但这些事件表明商标申请格局正在发生演变。如此体量的商标申请和有效商标不仅对新商标的成功注册是一种挑战， 而且也使现有商标的保护困难重重。 商标和商标申请的数量越多， 发生侵权的风险就越大， 也就意味着需要投入更多时间和金钱来保护商标组合。 从现实和经济的角度来看， 许多拥有大

5、量商标组合的企业不可能实时在所有渠道上监测所有商标。 但是， 这并不意味着品牌保护不重要。 相反， 这正好说明， 整个商标管理流程从始至终都需要精简化、 高效化， 并根据商标组合的规模适当扩展或收缩， 这样才能最大程度为整个商标组合提供保护。商标专业人士拥有大量工具和技术， 可以在工作中助他们一臂之力。 此外， 他们还会与知识产权律师事务所、 第三方提供商等专家合作， 借助这些专家的专业知识和工具促进整个商标生态系统的健康发展。为了更深入了解商标专业人士的做法、 观点和经验， 科睿唯安CompuMark事业部委托开展了一项独立调研， 对商标生态系统进行研究。 这项研究由独立调查公司Vitreo

6、us World完成， 调研对象为来自五个国家的351名商标专业人士， 他们任职企业内部法律顾问或外部商标律师。3 iling-120039211.html 039211.htm4重要发现技术在商标管理流程中继续发挥主导作用商标专业人士对新工具和新技术的需求日渐迫切。 在商标研究和保护方面， 技术被认为是最需要加强的因素 （49%的调查对象选择该项） 。另外， 人工智能 （AI） 过去曾被认为可能对商标专业人士的工作构成威胁， 但如今也被视为一种可以改善商标管理流程各环节的方法， 尤其适合用于加快流程、 开展预测分析和任务自动化。商标申请活动依然活跃， 侵权行为也不断增加尽管二者之间并无确证的

7、关联， 但商标申请和侵权行为的确都呈现上升趋势。 48%的调查对象表示， 今年申请的商标多于2018年 （31%的调查对象与 2018 年持平） 2019年， 85%的调查对象表示曾遭遇商标侵权， 而在2018年和2017年， 这一比例分别为81%和74% 侵权行为无处不在， 从企业名称到社交媒体， 从网站域名到广告宣传， 广泛涉及多个渠道侵权带来的后果依然严重除了导致客户困惑、 企业收益损失和品牌声誉受损之外， 因侵权而导致的资金花费也十分高昂 46%的调查对象由于遭遇侵权而不得不变更品牌名称 75%的调查对象表示对侵权提起过诉讼 40%的调查对象在侵权案件上的诉讼成本在50,000美元至2

8、49,999美元之间企业内部流程和观念也在变化过去一年， 在商标名称创建过程中， 商标专业人士与市场营销等其他业务部门之间的合作越来越多。 培训就是其中一种合作方式， 无论是正式培训还是临时起意； 30%的调查对象表示开展过此类的正式培训。商标版图正在扩大超过一半的调查对象表示， 他们在过去 12个月内申请的商标超过上一年， 而且令人意外的是， 78%的调查对象将工业品外观设计纳入了他们的商标申请策略。 5商标生态系统概览商标在全球商业领域扮演着十分重要的角色。 无论初创公司还是市场上的成熟企业，商标的重要性不言而喻。 因此， 商标必须具有唯一性、 合法性而且必须受到保护， 这样才能减轻风险并

9、实现商业价值最大化。 然而， 创新和变革的步伐之快却为品牌和商标专业人士创造了一个充满挑战的环境。无论WIPO的数据还是本次调研均表明， 全球商标申请数量正在逐年增长。近半数 （48%） 的调查对象表示， 过去12个月申请的商标数量与上年相比有所增加， 31%的调查对象表示商标申请数量保持不变，21%的调查对象表示有所减少。来看具体数量： 在过去12个月， 40%的调查对象申请的商标数量为6-20件， 23%的调查对象申请的商标数量为21-50件， 9%的调查对象申请商标数量超过51件。 与 CompuMark于2018年的调研相比， 这些数字略有不同。商标数量增长的同时， 种类也有所变化检索

10、和申请的商标在数量上无疑呈现出上升趋势， 而行业内的其他变化也值得关注。其中比较明显的是， 调查对象申请的商标在类型上发生了变化。例如， 图形商标的申请量有所增加， 56%的调查对象表示， 他们在去年提交了更多图形商标。图 1. 全球商标申请量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申请商标数量62018 2019图 2. 经过检索的商标进行了检索的商标比例进行了检索的商标比例图 3. 经过检索的工业品外观设计和图形商标调查对象还表示，他们独自清查商标时面临着严峻的挑战，其中包括：数据过多（49%）、时间不足（44%）、资源不足 （38%）以及没有合适的工具和技术 （35%）令人意外的是， 调查对象还表示工业品外观设计也在他们的商标申请

16、之列。 近八成 （78%） 的调查对象称， 他们已将工业品外观设计纳入其商标申请策略， 而未将工业品外观设计纳入商标申请策略的调查对象则指出， 他们之所以没有这样做是因为需求不足 （45%） 或预算短缺 （33%） 。可用性与保护商标管理流程的最理想做法无疑是在提交商标申请之前， 申请人对所有商标先进行全面检索和侵权筛查。 但实际上， 并非所有申请人每次都能做到这一点，尤其是在时间、 预算等资源不足的情况下。当问及有多少商标在提交申请之前经过检索， 只有29%的调查对象表示， 他们对超过四分之三的拟申请商标进行过检索。 大多数调查对象表示， 他们仅对26%-50%的商标进行过检索。同样， 今年

17、的结果与去年相比也有一些差异， 尤其是检索商标比例最低和最高的调查结果。 去年， 只有20%的调查对象曾对其76%或以上的商标进行过检索， 今年， 这一比例提高至29%。 2018年， 13%的调查对象对1%-25%的商标进行过检索， 而在2019年，这一比例下降至9%。商标检索和筛查当然不是一个容易完成的任务， 因为有许多限制因素需要克服， 例如资源方面的压力， 尤其是内部资源。 将近一半的 （47%） 调查对象在没有外部帮助的情况下独自进行商标清查， 他们为此花费的时间为6-10小时。 鉴于这些工作的费用情况， 商标专业人士不得不在资源方面进行权衡。 调查对象还表示， 他们独自清查商标时面

18、临着严峻的挑战， 其中包括： 数据过多（49%） 、 时间不足 （44%） 、 资源不足 （38%） 以及没有合适的工具和技术 （35%） 。至于工业品外观设计和图形商标， 大部分商标专业人士的检索比例在26%-50%之间。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工业品外观设计 图形商标72018 20198在得到上述检索商标的数据之后， 我们还需了解商标专业人士如何作出这样的决定， 以及他们根据哪些因素来选择特定商标进行检索， 这一点非常重要。 2019年， 影响检索的主要因素是品牌总体投资， 28%的调查对象选择了这个因素， 排在第二位和第三位的分别是预算 （22%） 和品牌等级 （18

33、%） 。 这个结果与2018年截然不同。2018年的调研表明， 预算是最重要的因素（28%） ， 其次是品牌投资 （25%） 和品牌预期收益 （19%） 。尽管具体比例在这两年没有显著差异， 但预算不再是主要考虑因素， 这一点很值得考量。 原因可能是商标专业人士在这项工作中得到的预算增多， 也有可能仅仅是因为优先考虑总体投资更为重要。图 4. 根据哪些因素优先选择特定商标在申请前进行检索而在选择特定商标进行监测时， 优先考虑的因素则与选择商标进行检索时明显不同。 2018年， 品牌预期收益是影响优先监测特定商标的主要因素， 而在2019年， 预算则成为主要因素。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预算 （28%）品牌投资 （24%）品牌预期收益 （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. 品牌总体投资 （28%） 预算 （22%）品牌等级 （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优先选择要监测的商标时， 占比最高的几个因素如下：尽管影响监测的具体因素与去年相比有所变化， 但是， 被监测商标的数量大体不变。其中， 大部分 （37%） 调查对象对其26%-50%的商标进行监测。图 5. 根据哪些因素优先选

56、择要监测的商标图 6. 有多少商标得到监测？品牌预期收益 （23%） 品牌投资 （22%）预算 （21%）预算 （22%）品牌总体投资 （21%）预期收入 （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监测商标比例92018 2019侵权行为持续增长一方面， 企业缺乏有效检索和监测全部商标所需的时间和资源； 另一方面， 侵权行为仍然层出不穷。 只要浏览新闻， 这种感觉就会更加强烈。 2019年10月， California Wine Company诉称 Applebee的 “VAMPIRE” 鸡尾酒侵犯了该公司的 “VAMPIRE” 商标4。 Riot Games也曾起诉Riot Squad侵犯其商标权，称Riot

61、Squad故意在名称中使用 “Riot” ， 有意误导粉丝认为两个品牌之间存在某种关系5。在本次调研中， 侵权行为不断增加的趋势尤其明显。 2017年， 74%的商标专业人士遭遇过侵权。 2018年， 这一比例提高至81%， 而在今年的调研中， 比例已高达85%。 短短两年间， 增长率就达到15%， 呈现出一种明显的上升态势。调查对象遭遇侵权的次数也体现出这种上升趋势。 近四成调查对象表示， 他们遭遇过1-10起侵权， 而30%的调查对象则表示遭遇过11-30起侵权。 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. 侵权事件侵权比例102018年调研得到的数字与2019年得到的数字基本一致， 只有遭遇侵权31-50起的比例有所不同： 2018年， 有7%的调查对象遭遇过31-50起侵权事件， 而 2019年这一比例上升至12%。这种上升与商标专业人士的感受是契合的。 超过四成 （43%） 的调查对象认为侵权事件在过去两年中有所增加， 而37%的

66、调查对象认为过去两年侵权事件的数量没有变化。 这不仅体现了侵权威胁的严重性， 而且还表明， 侵权为品牌带来的后果仍然是他们需要应对的主要问题。此外， 本次研究还显示， 侵权行为涉及多个渠道。 调查对象遭遇侵权的渠道主要有： 企业名称 （44%） 、 网站域名 （44%） 、 社交媒体 （38%） 、 网络经营 （38%） 和广告宣传（34%） 。侵权的影响不仅企业遭遇商标侵权事件的数量令人担忧， 总成本滥用带来的后果也极其严重。 无论是客户信任度降低还是营收损失， 侵权导致的后果均有据可查。 在本次调研中， 商标专业人士指出了侵权行为导致的四种主要后果， 即导致客户困惑、 营收损失、 品牌声誉

67、受损以及客户信任度和忠诚度下降。该结果与 CompuMark在2018年调研的结果一致：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%图 8. 侵权造成的影响2018 2019导致客户困惑营收损失品牌声誉受损客户忠诚度和信任度降低11不仅如此， 企业还会因遭遇商

72、标侵权而直接面临其他问题， 这些都会在上述四个方面造成影响。 尤其是， 75%的调查对象曾因遭遇侵权而提起诉讼。 法律诉讼不仅是一条昂贵的维权途径， 而且会在品牌宣传以及客户和市场对品牌的认知方面产生更广泛的影响。事实上， 当被问及企业在其最困难的侵权诉讼案中花费如何时， 47%的调查对象表示， 他们在这样的案件中诉讼成本最高为50,000美元。 另外， 40%的调查对象表示诉讼成本在50,000-249,999美元之间。 虽然有些诉讼案件会以和解告终， 例如备受瞩目的Burberry诉 Target案6 和Adidas America诉Skechers USA案7， 但也可能导致付出更高昂的

73、代价。除付诸法律之外， 46% 的商标专业人士称，他们所在的企业因遭遇侵权而不得不更换品牌名称。与2018年的30%相比， 今年的这一比例明显升高。 与采取法律手段一样， 更换品牌名称造成的影响范围也极为广泛， 包括对成本、声誉和客户信任度的影响。 例如， 视企业投放新品牌的渠道而定， 更换名称给企业带来的影响可能是毁灭性的， 会影响网站设计、 广告宣传、 包装、 徽标等方方面面。 无论是全球性的品牌还是本地企业， 都会因为更换名称受到影响。美国丹佛的一家咖啡和果汁店 “Sol Kitchen”就是一个典型的例子。 在开始营业后不久，Sol Kitchen就被亚利桑那州的一家餐馆经营者起诉，

74、声称Sol Kitchen侵犯了其商标权，因为Sol Kitchen与这家餐馆的Sol Cocina品牌冲突 （在西班牙语中，“cocina” 的意思就是厨房， 即 “kitchen” ） 。 Sol Kitchen的所有者已经在网站和徽标设计方面投入了10,000美元， 但最后却只能以更名收场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虽然商标名称创建、 清查和申请是商标管理流程的重要环节， 但其他一些因素也需要考虑。 从流程整体来看， 今年的调研明确显示， 技术在整个流程中继续发挥重要作用。近半数 （49%） 的商标专业人士表示， 技术是改进商标研究和保护流程的主要方法之一。 其次是投入更多资源 （46%） 、 增加预算（45%） 、 花费更多时间 （40%） 和增进部门间的协作 （40%） 。 与去年相比， 这些要素的优先顺序未发生改变。

81、当谈及如何在商标研究过程中改进技术来提高效率时， 调查对象表示可以： 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%流程改进：技术及其他提供实时数据视图加入更好的分析功能加入更好的报告功能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%).改善非结构化数据提供对数据进行配置的功能这些结果既表明调查对象希望使用对用户更加友好的技术， 也表明他们认为确实还有改进的空间。 调查对象对人工智能的态度也清楚表明了他们对使用技术的兴趣。尽管在传统观念中， 人工智能一直被视为是对商标和知识产权专业人士的一种威胁， 但人工智能确实有能力自动完成耗时的任务、 提高执行速度并使整个流程的准确性更上一层楼。调研结果也体现出这种观点。 调查对象表示， 人工智能在加

101、快商标检索和监测流程方面帮助最大， 其次AI作用较大的是运用预测分析功能预测申请能否成功或案件结果， 以及完成大量重复、 繁琐的工作。回到起点： 商标名称创建过程选择一个能够彰显品牌价值和身份且独一无二的名称变得越来越困难。 在大多数情况下， 这一任务是交给营销团队， 他们负责构思和形成要在产品、 解决方案和宣传活动中使用的名称。 虽然营销团队和法务团队可能目标不同， 但有迹象显示， 这些团队之间的合作日趋紧密。过去， 商标专业人士很少在早期就介入商标名称创建过程， 而且， 即便借助了某些工具进行检索和清查， 但在确保合法性的最理想操作方面， 不同团队之间仍存在认识上的差距。在被问及商标名称创

102、建过程中的协作情况时， 42%的调查对象表示自己是商标名称创建过程中不可或缺的一部分， 而41%的调查对象则表示， 只是有人针对特定事项向自己进行过咨询。 令人欣慰的是， 仅15%的调查对象表示他们几乎没有与其他部门有过这方面的合作。此外， 培训似乎也成为商标名称创建过程中的一个重点。 近三成调查对象 （30%） 表示， 他们为营销团队制定了正式的培训计划， 24%的调查对象有专门的流程用来与品牌所有者合作， 22%的调查对象设置了专项培训计划， 21%的调查对象会在有需要时随时提供培训。但是， 部分调查对象也承认， 在培训、 合作以及其他方面， 商标名称创建过程仍有改进空间。 在谈及使这一过

103、程更加顺畅的因素时， 51%的调查对象认为技术是最重要因素， 接下来分别是改善沟通 （47%） ，让商标专业人士尽早参与商标名称创建（41%） ， 以及为负责商标命名的人提供培训（38%） 。结论随着行业转型的涉及面日渐拓宽， 加之市场不断扩大， 立法、 政治和经济环境瞬息万变， 在这些因素的共同推动下， 企业需要与时俱进， 与大环境的变化保持同步， 尤其是市场变得日渐拥挤， 树立独具特色的品牌形象变得越来越难。 商标生态系统也在不断演变， 这不仅体现在商标申请数量方面，还体现在商标类型方面。 设计一个独一无二的商标本身就极具挑战， 而随着有效商标和商标申请数量的不断增长， 如何保护现有商标权

104、不受侵犯也是一个必须面对的课题。 实际上， 侵权行为正在逐年稳步上升且波及各种渠道， 不再仅限于传统的文字商标。随着商标行业的不断发展和知识产权价值的持续升高，商标专业人士也将从这样的发展和行业加大的投资中获益。 商标意识的提高和商标数量的增长意味着发生侵权的可能性也在增加。 展望未来， 商标专业人士和商标生态系统内的其他利益相关者可以利用他们掌握的工具和专业知识， 来开创最适合自己的道路来完成商标管理流程。方法论CompuMark委托独立调查公司Vitreous World针对商标行业的现状开展调研， 希望了解商标专业人士遭遇的商标侵权事件、应对侵权的经验、 在商标管理流程中的实践以及面临的

105、挑战。 该公司于2019年末， 对随机抽取的来自英国、 美国、 德国、 意大利和法国的351名企业内部商标顾问和外部商标律师进行了在线访谈。关于 CompuMarkCompuMark 是科睿唯安旗下全球商标研究和保护的领先企业之一。 我们在全球拥有商标和品牌专家团队， 通过覆盖全球最广的商标数据帮助客户推出新商标， 进行商标拓展和保护， 我们能为客户提供全球的商标筛查与监测、 专业分析， 以及最优的服务。 我们的主要产品包括： SAEGIS 商标数据筛查系统、 TM go365 商标清查平台、全面的商标检索和监测、 以及版权检索。 更多信息， 请访问。科睿唯安中国办公室北京海淀区科学院南路2号融科资讯中心C座北楼610单元邮编： 100190电话： +86-10 57601200传真： +86-10 82862088邮箱： 网站： 2020 Clarivate Analytics. 科睿唯安CompuMark及其标识， 以及本文所用商标均为各自所有人之商标， 经许可使用。CompuMark全面的商标数据， 实现全球商标保护