人民法院在审理商标授权确权案件时,如何认定《商标法》第28条意义上的“类似商品”?在2012年第12期《最高人民法院公报》的《杭州啄木鸟鞋业与中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、七好(集团)有限公司商标争议行政纠纷案》(下文简称“啄木鸟案”)中,最高院对此问题已经予以系统阐述。然而很快司法实践当中便涌现出新的问题,需要我们对“类似商品” When examining the case of the right of trademark authorization, the people’s court finds out “similar goods” in the meaning of Article 28 of the “Trademark Law”. In the “Supreme People’s Court Bulletin” of 2012, the “Hangzhou Woodpecker Footwear Company and China The People’s Republic of China State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the seven good (Group) Co., Ltd. trademark dispute administrative dispute ”(hereinafter referred to as“ Woodpecker case ”), the Supreme Court on this issue have been systematically elaborated. However, a new issue soon emerged in judicial practice, requiring us to review “similar products”