← 返回
数据分析

蒋道理|商标异议·无效申请推理引擎(SJ-IRAC)

商标异议·无效申请推理引擎(SJ-IRAC):基于法条要件、证据链与风险分级的专业级审查与攻防系统。
商标异议·无效申请推理引擎(SJ-IRAC):基于法条要件、证据链与风险分级的专业级审查与攻防系统。
jisngzhongling
数据分析 clawhub v1.1.2 1 版本 99897.4 Key: 无需
★ 1
Stars
📥 1,927
下载
💾 46
安装
1
版本
#bad-faith#china-ip#cnipa#evidence-chain#invalidation#irac#latest#legal-ai#legal-analysis#opposition#risk-assessment#trademark

概述

商标异议·无效申请推理引擎(SJ-IRAC)

Author: Jiang Zhongling (商标蒋道理)

Organization: Nantong Zhongnan Quansheng IP Co., Ltd.

Version: 1.1.2

Last Updated: 2026-02-03


Summary (for ClawHub)

A law-firm-grade CNIPA Opposition / Invalidation engine that turns case materials into examiner-readable attack briefs with IRAC, SJ-6 evidence chains, and A–E risk gates.

No templates. No fluff. No fabricated facts.


What This Skill Does

This skill ingests CNIPA registry data + case facts + evidence inventory and outputs:

  • Ground selection system (main + auxiliary, prioritized)
  • Element-by-element legal reasoning (Article-precise, guideline-aligned)
  • SJ-6 evidence chain map (proof purpose + timeline + weak-link detection)
  • Stop-loss decisions (standing / time-bar / admissibility / EV-cost kill gates)
  • Submission-ready structure (Document Mode)

Constraint: No generic AI writing. No speculative conclusions. Only verifiable, evidence-backed reasoning.


v1.1 Highlights (Operational Upgrades)

1) Standing & Limitation Control (Hard Gate)

  • Eligibility screening before any drafting
  • Time-bar traps surfaced early (relative grounds / 5-year logic where applicable)
  • “不能打”的案子直接止损,不堆字

2) Procedural Control Review

  • Deadline control and procedural admissibility checks
  • Suspension triggers / coordination with parallel proceedings
  • Evidence form compliance checks (source, integrity, probative chain)

3) Risk Engine Refinement (Kill Gates)

  • Procedural / discretionary fatal-defect gates
  • EV-cost stop-loss when expected value < cost
  • Evidence weakness quantified and action-ranked

Scope & Positioning

Primary Scope

  • CNIPA Opposition
  • CNIPA Invalidation (absolute grounds; relative grounds where legally available)

Core Mission

Convert dispute materials into a decision-grade argument system:

  • Which grounds to use (and in what order)
  • Which elements must be proven
  • Which evidence carries probative weight
  • Which defects are fatal (stop-loss)
  • How to write in a CNIPA examiner-readable structure

Not a Template Pack

This is an argument + evidence engineering engine, not a folder of sample briefs.


Legal Basis (Bounded Sources)

Operates strictly within:

  • PRC Trademark Law (2019 Amendment)
  • Implementing Regulations
  • CNIPA Examination & Adjudication Guidelines / review norms
  • Nice Classification + Similar Goods/Services Classification (use your latest internal table)

Prohibited

  • Fictional statutes, fictional cases, invented timelines
  • “Common sense” replacing evidence
  • Fame/renown claims without third-party proof

Core Framework

1) IRAC (Mandatory, Examiner-Oriented)

  1. Issue: define disputes (grounds, parties, marks, timeframe, target goods/services)
  2. Rule: map statutes + guideline purpose + elements + burden/standard
  3. Application: match evidence to elements (逐要件对应,不做假设)
  4. Conclusion: enforceable outcome + next-step plan (补证/改路/止损)

2) SJ-6 Evidence Chain (Mandatory)

Each item is scored under:

  1. Authenticity
  2. Relevance
  3. Completeness
  4. Temporal validity
  5. Logical consistency
  6. Cross-examination resistance

Evidence organization rules

  • Timeline-first
  • Each exhibit must have an explicit proof purpose
  • Identify the weakest link and the minimum supplementation set

3) Risk Module (A–E + Kill Gates)

Outputs include:

  • Risk Level: A / B / C / D / E
  • Risk Dimensions: Substantive / Evidentiary / Procedural / Discretionary / EV-cost
  • Kill Gates: standing缺失、时效障碍、证据不可核验、路径不适配、成本倒挂等

Supported Scenarios

  • Opposition: absolute / relative grounds (route-prioritized)
  • Invalidation: absolute grounds; relative grounds within applicable time limits
  • Bad-faith pattern attack: serial filings / hoarding / imitation patterns
  • Cross-class confusion reasoning: confusion → similarity inference where supported
  • Evidence gap diagnosis: replace low-value evidence; build high-signal chain
  • Overloading control: avoid “全都写上”造成裁量反噬

Input Requirements (Minimum Viable Case Packet)

Provide at least:

  1. Target trademark number(s), status, filing/registration dates
  2. Parties and relationship clues (if any)
  3. Designated goods/services + class(es)
  4. Case timeline (publication/registration + prior use milestones)
  5. Intended grounds (optional; engine can propose)
  6. Evidence inventory: source / date / type / brief / proof purpose (if known)

If inputs are incomplete → conservative output by design.


Output Modes

Quick Mode (Fast Triage)

  • rule positioning
  • route shortlist (main/aux)
  • key evidence checklist
  • go/no-go (no full IRAC)

Pro Mode (IRAC + SJ-6 + Risk)

  • full IRAC
  • evidence chain diagnosis + weak-link list
  • A–E risk rating + kill-gate triggers
  • conservative success probability range
  • action plan + supplementation list (ranked by ROI)

Document Mode (Submission-Ready)

  • neutral official tone
  • statute + evidence driven
  • no probabilistic language
  • paragraphing optimized for CNIPA examiner reading
  • exhibits indexed + proof-purpose mapping + timeline tables (if provided)

Compliance & Hard Constraints

  • No fabricated facts, transactions, screenshots, or dates
  • No speculation without evidentiary support
  • No inflated influence/fame claims without third-party proof
  • Always surface: weakest link + minimum fix
  • If expected value < cost → advise against proceeding + alternatives

Typical Use Cases (Law-Firm Grade)

  • CNIPA opposition brief drafting (attack route selection + structure)
  • CNIPA invalidation petition drafting (absolute/relative route control)
  • Bad-faith chain construction (pattern proof + linkage logic)
  • Evidence packet engineering (what to keep / replace / add)
  • Client-facing risk memo (non-guarantee, cost-aware, decision-grade)

How to Use

  1. Provide registry data + facts + evidence inventory
  2. Choose mode: Quick / Pro / Document
  3. Receive:
    • prioritized grounds,
    • element-based reasoning,
    • evidence chain + gaps,
    • risk rating + next actions,
    • (Document Mode) submission-ready structure.

Versioning Notes

  • Patch (x.y.z): doc/consistency fixes
  • Minor (x.y.0): new modules / workflow upgrades
  • Major (x.0.0): architecture changes

版本历史

共 1 个版本

  • v1.1.2 当前
    2026-03-28 17:41 安全 安全

安全检测

腾讯云安全 (Keen)

安全,无风险
查看报告

腾讯云安全 (Sanbu)

安全,无风险
查看报告

🔗 相关推荐

data-analysis

Stock Analysis

udiedrichsen
{"answer":"基于雅虎财经数据,分析股票与加密货币。支持投资组合管理、自选股预警、股息分析、8维评分、热门趋势扫描及传闻/早期信号探测。适用于股票分析、持仓追踪、财报异动、加密监控、热门股追踪或提前发掘非主流传闻。"}
★ 270 📥 57,038
data-analysis

Excel / XLSX

ivangdavila
创建、检查和编辑 Microsoft Excel 工作簿及 XLSX 文件,支持可靠的公式、日期、类型、格式、重算及模板保留功能。
★ 368 📥 140,919
data-analysis

A股量化 AkShare

mbpz
A股量化数据分析工具,基于AkShare库获取A股行情、财务数据、板块信息等。用于回答关于A股股票查询、行情数据、财务分析、选股等问题。
★ 166 📥 60,288