VOS MARQUES EN CHINE : PROTEGEZ LEUR TRANSLITERATION !

Paris, Mars 2013

Evelyne ROUX, Associée REGIMBEAU

Vous exportez, commercialisez ou faites fabriquer vos produits en Chine, nous n’avons qu’un conseil : PROTEGER VOS MARQUES au préalable.

Oui mais dans quelle version ? Celle de la marque utilisée en Europe, une version translité- rée, une traduction véhiculant une signification positive en Chine ? Une combinaison des trois si votre budget le permet !

L’article suivant de notre confrère chinois M. YANG Mingming du Cabinet WAN HUI DA illustre l’intérêt de translitérer une marque pour élargir la portée de sa protection.

L’Office et les tribunaux chinois sont en effet extrêmement réticents à protéger une marque, connue ou pas, pour d’autres produits que ceux pour lesquels elle est protégée.

Le cas commenté ci-après – et d’autres cas que nous avons défendus - semblent augurer d’une petite brèche dans une pratique qui refusait jusqu’à présent d’admettre la similarité de produits ou services fondée comme en Europe sur la notion économique selon laquelle sont perçus comme similaires des produits ou services « pouvant provenir d’une même en- treprise ».

Dans ce contexte, la translitération de vos marques peut présenter un réel atout !

Evelyne ROUX ([email protected]) Associée

• A propos de REGIMBEAU :

REGIMBEAU, Conseil en Propriété Industrielle, accompagne depuis plus de 80 ans les entreprises et les porteurs de projets des secteurs privés et publics, pour la protection, la valorisation et la défense de leurs innovations (brevets, marques, dessins et modèles). Huit associés animent une équipe de 200 personnes, dont les compétences s'exercent dans tous les aspects stratégiques de la propriété indus- trielle: veille technologique, contrats de licence, audit de portefeuilles de PI, négociations dans le cadre de partenariat, acquisition des droits, contentieux. L’expertise de REGIMBEAU (présent à Paris, Rennes, Lyon, Grenoble, Montpellier, Toulouse, Caen et Munich) permet de répondre à des logiques stratégiques internationales, tout en préservant des relations personnalisées de très haute qualité avec ses clients.

1

2) This trademark has been widely used and WHD Focus advertised before the filing date of the opposed trademark and has been recognized as a well-known trademark by “শ௅ሒཎ” (Chinese Transliteration the CTMO in 2011. Based on the evidence of “Häagen-Dazs”) Helps the submitted by General Mills, the trademark “শ௅ሒཎ” was well-known before the Protection of “Häagen-Dazs” filing date of the opposed trademark and thus it should be recognized again as a TRAB extends the protection scope of the well- well-known trademark in respect of ice known trademark Häagen-Dazs (in Chinese) to creams. goods uncovered by its registration, in an effort to stop trademark squatting. 3) The evidence submitted to the TRAB proves that the General Mills used its trademark “Häagen-Dazs & Design” General Mills is an American Fortune 500 (Figure 3), combined with its Chinese corporation, primarily concerned with food transliteration “শ௅ሒཎ ”, in actual use products. This company markets many and advertising, and that this combination worldwide famous brands, such as Häagen-Dazs, had also obtained a high reputation in the Betty Crocker, Wanchai Ferry, Yoplait, Green market. The trademark “Häagen-Dazs & Giant and Bugles, etc. Design” had established a unique In August 2003, ZENG Deqiang, a natural person connection with its Chinese transliteration from Hainan Province of China, applied to “শ௅ሒཎ”. register the trademark “Höogen-Dazs & Design” (Figure 3) in respect of products such as 4) The opposed trademark “Höogen-Dazs & clothing, gloves, jackets, trousers, etc. in Class Design”, is identical to “Häagen-Dazs & 25. This application was preliminarily approved Design”, except for the change of the and published for opposition by the China letters “äa” into “öo”. These two Trademark Office (“CTMO”) in January 2006. trademarks seem to be almost identical in overall appearance. Therefore, the General Mills timely filed an opposition, but the opposed trademark constitutes a CTMO did not support the opposition and ruled duplication and imitation of the in favor of the opposed party. General Mills transliteration in foreign language of appealed for review before the Trademark another person’s well-known trademark. Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”), in Its registration and use would be likely to April 2010. mislead the consumers and harm the interests of General Mills. The registration In September 2012, the TRAB made a decision of the opposed trademark violates Article in favor of General Mills and rejected the 13.2 of Trademark Law and thus should be application of the opposed trademark. rejected from registration.

The TRAB’s decision was based on the following Because of the strict rules and practice of grounds: CTMO and TRAB in recognizing and protecting well-known trademarks, the protection of a 1) General Mills is the owner of the well-known trademark seldom extends to their trademark “শ௅ሒཎ ”(Figure 2) (Chinese transliteration in Chinese or in foreign language. transliteration of “Häagen-Dazs”: But in this case, although the mark “Häagen- Dazs” itself has not been recognized as well-

1

known yet, the TRAB based its decision on the well-known status of the transliteration of the foreign trademark. Also, it was the first time for the “Häagen-Dazs” brand to be protected in respect of the goods such as clothing, shoes, hats, etc. in Class 25.

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

Comments This decision sends a positive message about the protection of well-known trademark and the efforts made by the Supreme People’s Court to stop trademark squatting. In March 2012, the Supreme People’s Court finished the first draft of an “Opinion on Strengthening Protection of Well-known Trademark and Stopping Trademark Squatting”. In April and August, the Supreme Court held seminars and had an in-depth discussion on this draft. The opinion holds that “well-known trademark” will continue to play an important role in the trademark protection system in China, and that courts at various levels shall be more flexible in using the “well-known trademark” and/or other legal basis to stop the bad faith registrations.

Contributor: Mr. YANG Mingming Back to Contents

2