现实生活中,拥有多个近似注册商标的商标权人转让商标时,出于故意或过失,往往与受让人签订近似商标分开转让合同。对于该类合同纠纷,在审判实践中,因不同法院对一并转让规则理解不同则产生了不同的裁判结果。部分法院判令合同有效,强制转让人一并转让近似系列商标,部分法院认为当事人分开转让行为违反了效力性规范则判决合同无效,少数法院甚至还有合同可撤销的认识产生了突破近似商标一并转让规则的判例。司法是立法的延伸和补充,法官应在司法过程中严格依法贯彻和落实一并转让规则。同时,在近似注册商标分开转让合同的效力及系列近似商标权的归属问题上,作者结合商标转让合同特点和商业现实情况,提出了鼓励商标流转的裁判观点。 In real life, when a trademark owner holding multiple or similar registered trademarks transfers a trademark, he or she often signs an approximate trademark transfer contract with the assignee for intentional or negligent purposes. For such contractual disputes, different judgments have been produced in judicial practice because different courts have different interpretations of the same transfer rules. Some courts ruled that the contract was valid, and the forcible transferor also transferred the similar series of trademarks. Some courts found that the parties violated the norms of validity when they were transferred separately, and the contract was invalidated. Some courts even had contracts that could be revoked. And transfer the rules of the case. Justice is the extension and supplement of the legislation. Judges should strictly implement and implement the rules for the transfer together in the judicial process. At the same time, on the issue of the validity of the contractual transfer of registered trademarks and the ownership of the series of approximate trademark rights, the author puts forward the opinion of the referee that encourages the transfer of trademark in light of the characteristics of the trademark transfer contract and the commercial reality.