Under the provisions of the Trademark Law and the Trademark Examination and Review Guidelines, similar trademarks on similar goods are generally considered unable to coexist. Specifically, if two trademarks are similar in terms of wording, overall appearance, pronunciation, etc., being used on similar goods, they are likely to cause consumer confusion of the sources of goods / services. For example, when a consumer sees "农夫果园" (Farmer's Orchard), they might easily associate it with "农夫山泉" (Farmer's Spring).  Similarly, when seeing "金鲤鱼" (Golden Carp) oil, they might associate it with "金龙鱼" (Golden Dragon Fish) oil, assuming both are from the same product provider.  In fact, the aforementioned pairs of trademarks do come from the same provider. However, for similar trademarks on similar goods from different providers, consumers, with only general attention, are likely to be confused. Therefore, in such cases, similar trademarks are generally not allowed to coexist.

However, there are exceptions in practice. For instance, if two trademarks have formed their own consumer groups and market awareness in actual use, and consumers can clearly distinguish the sources of the two, then they may be allowed to coexist. In reality, we often see similar trademarks coexisting between different entities over similar goods, and there are even well-known brands. This phenomenon has not only sparked discussions in the legal community, but also attracted widespread attention from consumers.

For example, Geely's "Meiri" series car logo is similar in appearance to Toyota's car logo. In 2003, Toyota couldn't bear it and accused Geely of plagiarizing its brand, filing a lawsuit for infringement and demanding compensation of CNY 15 million.  Faced with this accusation, Geely firmly denies and actively responds to the lawsuit. After a year of litigation, Geely won the lawsuit because the court believed that the audience and main consumers of the two brands were completely different market. Due to the generally high price of cars, unlike ordinary goods, consumers pay high attention when purchasing automotive products. Therefore, consumers will not confuse Toyota and "Meiri" series car products when buying cars.

Apart from expensive and special goods like automobiles, in the relatively affordable milk protein beverage sector, “六个核桃”("Six Walnuts") and “沃源六仁核桃”("Woyuan Six-kernel Walnut") also coexist.  After the examination of the opposition, the Trademark Office still approved the registration of “沃源六仁核桃”("Woyuan Six-kernel Walnut").  Although “六仁核桃”("Six-kernel Walnut" ) and “六个核桃”("Six Walnuts") are similar, “六个核桃”("Six Walnuts") as a well-known brand has established a high degree of brand recognition and loyalty in the market. Consumers have a clear understanding of its brand image, product quality, and source, and can easily distinguish it from other similar brands. In addition, the prominent “沃源”("Woyuan") part also helps consumers distinguish the source of the products.

Why similar trademarks from different market entities can coexist on similar goods/services, there are practical reasons:

Firstly, consumer perception and market reality: in many cases, although the trademarks are similar, consumers have a higher recognition of well-known brands. The more well-known the brand, the more familiar it is to consumers, and therefore the clearer it is to distinguish the source of goods/services.

Secondly, there are market positioning and price differences: there are differences in market positioning and pricing between the two brands, and the consumers they face are often not the same group. For example, the pricing of "Meiri" series car is often less than CNY 100,000, while Toyota cars are generally priced between CNY 200,000 and 500,000. From this, it can be seen that the market positioning of the products on both sides is completely different, and there is little overlap between the consumers on both sides.

Finally, given the relatively lenient attitude of the Trademark Office and courts towards trademark coexistence agreements prior to 2021, many mark coexistence have emerged - this reflects the official willingness of market entities with private rights to coexist on trademark exclusive rights. However, since 2021, the Trademark Office has a stricter attitude towards trademark coexistence agreements, so theoretically, the coexistence in trademark examination will become increasingly rare.

It is not difficult for us to find that trademark coexistence is not uncommon in reality. This phenomenon not only reflects the diversity and complexity of the market, but also poses a challenge to the legal supervision of the use of trademarks by market entities. In the future, finding a balance between protecting consumer rights and maintaining market competition will be a problem that the legal and regulatory sectors need to face together. Only by finding a balance between law, market, and consumers can the true meaning of trademark protection be achieved.