DOCSLIB.ORG

(2020-21) Volume 35 Inland Revenue Board of Review Decisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(2020-21) Volume 35 Inland Revenue Board of Review Decisions (2020-21) VOLUME 35 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Case No. D7/19 Profits tax – royalty payment – whether deductible – whether incurred for the production of profits – trade mark licence agreement – whether artificial transaction – whether sole or dominant purpose to obtain a tax benefit – offshore company - management and control of trademarks thru a Hong Kong agent – whether carrying on business in Hong Kong – Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 21A, 61, 61A, 68(4) of IRO Panel: William M F Wong SC (chairman), Maurice Joseph Chan and Hau Pak Sun. Dates of hearing: 5 December 2017, 4-5 & 13 March 2019 and 20-21 May 2019. Date of decision: 30 July 2019. Both Company A and Company B (collectively, the ‘Appellants’) are subsidiaries of Company E. Company J is a related company to the Appellants and Company E. Company A is a private company incorporated in Hong Kong in 1896. Company B is an establishment incorporated in Country AE in 1991. Company B has never carried out any retail business in Hong Kong, nor does it own or occupy any premise in Hong Kong. It has no employees in Hong Kong. The management and control of the trade marks registered in the name of Company B was done by Company J. Since registrations in 1992, Company B has remained the registered proprietor of the HK Marks (comprising of Goods Marks and Service Marks). On 28 September 2012, Company B and Company A entered into the 2012 Licence. Under the 2012 Licence, Company B gave Company A a non-exclusive licence to use the HK Marks with effect from 1 January 2012. Over the Relevant Years (for years of assessment of 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15), Company A paid HK Royalties in accordance with the 2012 Licence to Company B. Company A contends that the HK Royalties to Company B are deductible under section 16 of IRO. Company B contends that it is not liable to be taxed for its profits. 137 (2020-21) VOLUME 35 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Held: 1. Over the Relevant Years, Company A’s payment of HK Royalties to Company B is not deductible under sections 16, 61 and 61A of the IRO: 1.1 Section 16 - The HK Royalties were not incurred by Company A in the production of profits. 1.2 Section 61 - The 2012 Licence was ‘artificial’ within the meaning of section 61 of the IRO. 1.3 Section 61A - The acquisition of a tax benefit was the sole or dominant purpose of the 2012 Licence. 2. Company B’s profits in licensing the HK Marks are assessable under section 14, or alternatively, taxable under sections 15(1)(b), 20B(2), and 21A(1) of the IRO: 2.1 Section 14 - Company B had been carrying on business in Hong Kong, and that the HK Royalties had arisen in Hong Kong from Company B’s business in Hong Kong. 2.2 Section 15(1)(b), 20B(2), and 21A(1) - Company B is liable to taxation (in the name of Company A). - 100% of the HK Royalties are taxable under section 21A(1)(a). 3. Company B is not entitled to rely on Article 12(2) of the Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Principality of Country AE for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital. 138 (2020-21) VOLUME 35 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Appeal dismissed and costs order in the amount of $20,000 imposed. Cases referred to: Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Common Empire Ltd (No 2) [2007] 3 HKLRD 75 Cheung Wah Keung v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2001] 1 HKLRD 172 Wood v Holden (2006) 78 TC 1 Perenco Holdings v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 65 Real Estate Investments (NT) Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2008) 11 HKCFAR 433 HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 Nina Kung v Wong Din Shin (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387 Shui On Credit Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2009) 12 HKCFAR 392 D94/99, IRBRD, vol 14, 603 So Kai Tong v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2004] 2 HKLRD 416 Zeta Estates v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2007) 10 HKCFAR 196 Zeta Estates v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2006] 2 HKLRD 208 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Swire Pacific Ltd [1979] HKLR 612 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Snowden & Willson Pty Ltd (1958) 99 CLR 431 Magna Alloys and Research Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1980) 33 ALR 213 Spriggs v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] HCA 22 Commissioner of Taxation v Cooke [2004] FCAFC 75 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lau (1984) 6 FCR 202 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Just Jeans (1987) 72 ALR 213 Ronpibon Tin NL v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 47 John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1959) 101 CLR 30 Bentleys, Stokes & Lowless v Beeson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [1952] 2 All ER 82 D44/92, IRBRD, vol 7, 324 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Secan (2000) 3 HKCFAR 411 Nice Cheer Investment Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2013) 16 HKCFAR 813 Perfekta Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2018] HKCA 301 Ngai Lik Electronics v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2009) 12 HKCFAR 296 Ransom v Higgs [1974] 1 WLR 1594 Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AB [2001] UKHL 21 Stichting Greenpeace Council v Income Team Ltd t/a Green Peace [1996] 1 HKLR 269 Celine SARL v Celine SA [2007] ETMR 80 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Case C-299/99) [2003] Ch 159 139 (2020-21) VOLUME 35 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Christian Dior v Evora [1997] ECR I-1603 Kerly’s on Trade Marks [16th Ed] British Sugar v James Robertson [1996] RPC 281 Acqualeisure Industries v Impag Toys Europe (unreported, HCA 3933/2000, 4 May 2006) PCCW HKT Datacom Services Ltd v Hong Kong Broadband Network Ltd [2018] 4 HKLRD 575 Euromarket Designs v Peters [2000] ETMR 1025 Apple Corps v Apple Computers [2006] EWHC 996 British Sugar v James Robertson [1996] RPC 281 Belvedere’s Trade Mark Application [2007] ETMR 18 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer [1999] 1 CMLR 77 Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173 Eminent Investments (Asia Pacific) Ltd v DIO Corp [2019] HKCA 606 Lewison on the Interpretation of Contracts (6th ed.) In the Matter of Lehman Brothers International [2012] EWHC 2997 Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 Scammell & Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251 Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections (HK) Ltd (unreported, HCA 204/2006, 7 July 2006) Hotel Cipriani v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] RPC 16 Nerium Biotechnology Inc v Nerium International [2018] HKCFI 674 ABG Juicy Couture LLC v Bella International Ltd (unreported, HCA 1764/2008, 8 September 2014) 深圳市德力康電子科技有限公司 v Joo Sik Hoi Sa LG (unrep, HCMP881/201, 26 March 2014) Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Ltd [2012] EWHC 1929 Frost Products v F C Frost Ltd [2013] ETMR 44 Ping An Securities Ltd (2009) 12 HKCFAR 808 WD & HO Wills (Aust) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 65 FCR 298 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Phillips (1978) 20 ALR 607 Cecil Bros Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1964) 111 CLR 430 Northern & Shell Plc v John Laing Construction Ltd [2002] EWHC 2258 (upheld by Court of Appeal ([2003] EWCA Civ 1035) Seramco Limited Superannuation Fund Trustees v Income Tax Commissioner [1977] AC 287 Commissioner of Taxpayer Audit and Assessment v Cigarette Company of Jamaica Limited [2012] STC 1045 Metal Manufactures Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 1712 Matter of Sherwin-Williams [NY Tax Div. of Tax Appeals, DTA No 816712, June 5 2003] Re Sherwin–Williams Co v Tax App Trib of the Dep’t of Taxation & Fin. of NY, 12 AD3d Alesco New Zealand Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2012] 2 NZLR 252 Penny and Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZSC 95 140 (2020-21) VOLUME 35 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tai Hing Cotton Mill (Development) Ltd [2008] 2 HKLRD 40 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tai Hing Cotton Mill (Development) Ltd (2007) 10 HKCFAR 704 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v HIT Finance Ltd (2007) 10 HKCFAR 717 Ure v Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 50 FLR 219 Inland Revenue Commissioner v Hang Seng Bank [1991] 1 AC 306 Lee Yee Shing v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2008] 3 HKLRD 51 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bartica Investment Ltd (1996) 4 HKTC 129 Mitchell v Egyptian Hotels Ltd [1915] AC 1022 Malayan Shipping Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1946) 71 CLR 156 ING Baring Securities v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2008] 1 HKLRD 412 Sulley v Attorney General (1860) 5 Hurlstone and Norman 711 American Leaf Blending Co Sdn Bhd v Director-General of Inland Revenue [1979] AC 676 Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, paragraph 1-006 Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, paragraph 2-031 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wardley Investment Services (1992) 3 HKTC 703 Mehta of Bombay v Commissioner of Income Tax (1938) LR 65 Indian Appeals 332 Liquidator, Rhodesia Metals Ltd [1940] AC 774 Kwong Mile Services v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2004] 3 HKLRD 168 Kim Eng Securities v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2007] 2 HKLRD 117 Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) v Kirk [1900] AC 588 Orion Caribbean Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1997] STC 923 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v HK-TVB International Ltd [1992] 2 AC 397 Thorpe Nominees Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 ATR 1834 Nathan v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1918) 25 CLR 183 Smidth v Greenwood [1921] 3 KB 583 Grainger & Son v Gough (Surveyor of Taxes) [1896] AC 325 Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd v Lewellin [1957] 1 WLR 464 Yates (Inspector of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting in Gtlds Old Style, Cctld Style and Gtld New Style
    Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Trademark Cybersquatting In ccTLD, Old Style gTLD and New Style gTLD Systems COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE US, EU AND INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES By Waddah Al-rawashdedh University of Szeged Faculty of Law and Political Sciences Graduate School Hungary 2017 Spring Dispute Resolution Mechanisms & Trademark Cybersquatting Table of Contents Page DEDICATION ............................................................................................ 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ 12 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 1 DOMAIN NAMES AND TRADEMARKS ................................................ 22 1.1. Overview ....................................................................................... 22 1.2. Meaning of Domain Names and Domain Name System (DNS) ............................................................................................. 22 1.3. The Need and Importance of Domain Names ........................... 25 1.4. Types of Domain Names ............................................................. 26 1.4.1. “Country-code” TLDs ............................................................................... 26 1.4.2. “generic” TLDs ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Brand Management Landscape: Strategies for 2017 and Beyond
    The Global Brand Management Landscape: Strategies for 2017 and Beyond October 4, 2016 Gabriela Kennedy Partner and Head of Asia IP & TMT Group Mayer Brown JSM Michael Adams Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP Mayer Brown LLP Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liabilitypartnership incorporated in England and Wales;and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia. 1 Overview of Program • Elements of a Brand Management Program • Trademarks and Brands • Domain Names • Social Media • Policy and Advocacy Engagement for Brand Owners 2 2 Elements of a Brand Management Program • Importance of a Cohesive Global Brand Management Program • Trademarks – Domestic and International Portfolio • Internet Presence – Domain Names, Social Media, and Other Web Content • Policy and Advocacy Engagement – Domestic and Global 3 Trademarks and Brands: Trademark Portfolio Best Practices • Trademark searching and clearance strategies • Trademark applications and registrations • Trademark enforcement strategy program • Trademark in transitions – rebranding, mergers / acquisitions and more 4 Trademark Searching and Clearance Strategies: U.S. PRELIMINARYKNOCK-OUTSEARCH • A knock-out search locates blatant conflicts with existing marks that would prevent use and registration of the proposed mark • This search saves time and money! • Mayer Brown can usually provide results in approximately 48 hours, or on a more expedited basis if requested urgently 5 Trademark Searching and Clearance Strategies: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Opposition to Trade Mark Application No. 303659310Ab
    TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE (Cap. 559) OPPOSITION TO TRADE MARK APPLICATION NO. 303659310AB MARK: CLASSES: 16, 18, 25 APPLICANT: KABUSHIKI KAISHA MIXI (MIXI, INC.) (now changed name to MIXI, INC.) OPPONENT: MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. On 14 January 2016, Kabushiki Kaisha Mixi (Mixi, Inc.) (the “applicant”) filed an application (the “subject application”) under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Cap. 559 (the “Ordinance”) for registration of the following mark:- (the “subject mark”). 2. Registration is sought in respect of various classes of goods. The subject application was subsequently divided into 303659310AA and 303659310AB. The present proceedings is only in relation to the latter which seeks to register the following goods (“subject goods”) in Classes 16, 18, 25:- Class 16 pastes and other adhesives for stationery or household purposes, printed lottery tickets [other than toys]; paper and cardboard; stationery; printed matter; paintings [pictures]; calligraphic works; photographs [printed]; photograph stands; cards; card files; trading cards; note books; file folders; mechanical pencils; ballpoint pens; stickers [stationery]; notepads; calenders; sacred lots [Omikuji]. 1 Class 18 handbag frames; purse frames; horseshoes; clothing for pets; straps for luggage; bags; pouches; portable vanity cases [not fitted]; umbrellas; tote bags; purses; credit card cases [wallets]. Class 25 tee-shirts; clothing; garters; sock suspenders; braces for clothing [suspenders]; waistbands; belts [clothing]; footwear [other than boots for sports]; masquerade costumes; clothing for sports; boots for sports; sleep masks. 3. Particulars of the subject application were published on 27 May 2016. Monster Energy Company (the “opponent”) filed a notice of opposition which includes a “Statement of Grounds of Opposition” (the “Grounds of Opposition”) on 17 August 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry"
    Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry" In preparation for the handover, Hong Kong en- En vue de la r6trocession, l'ancien conseil 16gis- acted local ordinances in the areas of patents, designs latif de Hong-Kong a adopt6 diverses ordonnances and copyright. A new Trade Marks Ordinance is ex- dans les domaines des brevets, du design et des droits pected after the handover. Interestingly, much of this d'auteurs. On s'attend 6galement . ce qu'une ordon- legislation is based on United Kingdom statutes. The nance sur les marques de commerce soit adoptde peu success of this legislation in safe-guarding intellectual- de temps apr~s la r6trocession. Plusieurs de ces textes property rights ("IPRs") will depend less upon its con- 16gislatifs sont bas6s sur le module anglais. Le succ~s tents, and more upon a clear separation of the state and de la protection des droits de propridt6 intellectuelle judiciary in the Special Administrative Region ddpendra toutefois moins du contenu de ces lois que de ("S.A.R.") of Hong Kong. Despite the absence of a la s6paration claire entre le systime judiciaire et l'tat 1997 CanLIIDocs 49 tradition of the formal protection of IPRs, China has dans la nouvelle Zone administrative sp6ciale de Hong- identified a need to enact comprehensive intellectual- Kong. Bien qu'elle n'ait pas de tradition de protection property legislation. However, the absence of Western- de Ia propri6t6 intellectuelle, la R6publique populaire style rule of law in China has contributed to foreign de Chine a reconnu la n6cessit6 d'adopter une 16gisla- dissatisfaction with the enforcement of IPRs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore
    Intellectual Property Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore IP Newsletter We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our May 2015 Intellectual Property newsletter covering the latest developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We trust you will find this newsletter useful. If you would like any further information, please contact the team in your jurisdiction. Best regards, Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow (Singapore) Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners (Indonesia) In This Issue Wong & Partners (Malaysia) Recent Developments In: Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Indonesia Latest News Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of For more information, please Operational License and Evaluation of Collecting contact: Societies Kuala Lumpur Chew Kherk Ying Pursuant to the enactment of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Partner +60 3 2298 7933 Copyright ("Copyright Law"), the Ministry of Law and Human [email protected] Rights ("MOLHR") has issued Regulation No. 29 of 2014 on the Guidelines of Application and Issuance of Operational Singapore License and Evaluation of Collecting Management Society Andy Leck Managing Principal, ("Regulation No. 29"). Tel: +65 6434 2525 [email protected] The Copyright Law urges authors, copyright holders and Jakarta performers to be members of collecting societies in order to Daru Lukiantono manage and collect royalties from the commercial use of their Partner copyright and neighboring rights from the public. The Tel: +62 21 2960 8588 [email protected] Copyright Law indicates that collecting societies should be non-profit in nature and obtain operational licenses from the MOLHR by fulfilling certain requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry"
    Intellectual-Property Laws in the Hong Kong S.A.R.: Localization and Internationalization Paul Tackaberry" In preparation for the handover, Hong Kong en- En vue de la r6trocession, l'ancien conseil 16gis- acted local ordinances in the areas of patents, designs latif de Hong-Kong a adopt6 diverses ordonnances and copyright. A new Trade Marks Ordinance is ex- dans les domaines des brevets, du design et des droits pected after the handover. Interestingly, much of this d'auteurs. On s'attend 6galement . ce qu'une ordon- legislation is based on United Kingdom statutes. The nance sur les marques de commerce soit adoptde peu success of this legislation in safe-guarding intellectual- de temps apr~s la r6trocession. Plusieurs de ces textes property rights ("IPRs") will depend less upon its con- 16gislatifs sont bas6s sur le module anglais. Le succ~s tents, and more upon a clear separation of the state and de la protection des droits de propridt6 intellectuelle judiciary in the Special Administrative Region ddpendra toutefois moins du contenu de ces lois que de ("S.A.R.") of Hong Kong. Despite the absence of a la s6paration claire entre le systime judiciaire et l'tat tradition of the formal protection of IPRs, China has dans la nouvelle Zone administrative sp6ciale de Hong- identified a need to enact comprehensive intellectual- Kong. Bien qu'elle n'ait pas de tradition de protection property legislation. However, the absence of Western- de Ia propri6t6 intellectuelle, la R6publique populaire style rule of law in China has contributed to foreign de Chine a reconnu la n6cessit6 d'adopter une 16gisla- dissatisfaction with the enforcement of IPRs.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark and Domain Name Interface
    TRADEMARK AND DOMAIN NAME INTERFACE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC by Kasybekova Kanykei LL.M. SHORT THESIS COURSE: International and European Intellectual Property Law PROFESSORS: György Boytha, Dr. and Vladimir Pavic, Dr. Central European University 1051 Budapest, Nador utca 9. Hungary CEU eTD Collection © Central European University March 29, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank my Mom and Dad for their endless love and support. I would like to express deep gratitude to my late supervisor Professor G. Boytha and to the Legal Studies Department for their help. I would like to thank “Britner & Partners” LLC and “Atan Consult” LLC for their help in providing all relevant and needed information on Kyrgyzstan, specifically with regard to cases on domain names, and Aisulu Chubarova for her help. I would like to commend for my group mates for being near me and friends for their invaluable friendship, especially Dinara Asanbaeva for all her support and care. Special thanks go to my Moot Team Friends for sharing their knowledge and ideas and for their inspiration through all this time. CEU eTD Collection ii ABSTRACT Internet has brought numerous challenges to the intellectual property legislation, and in particular, trademark law. Trademarks serve as a source of identifier of goods, while the domain name function through representing Internet Protocol addresses is the same. Both are registered on a first-come-first-served basis. Yet uniqueness of each string of alphanumeric characters as an Internet address and global nature of domain names differ from traditional trademark law features such as territoriality and specificity allowing similar trademarks co-exist for different classes of goods and services.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Trade Marks: Online Use and Anticybersquatting a European Perspective
    CMS Adonnino Ascoli & Cavasola Scamoni CMS Albiñana & Suárez de Lezo CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre CMS Cameron McKenna LLP CMS DeBacker CMS Derks Star Busmann CMS von Erlach Henrici CMS Hasche Sigle CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz Protection of Trade Marks: Online Use and Anticybersquatting A European Perspective A CMS IP Group Publication Introduction Trade marks are essential for building business reputations in the modern business world. They enable customers to identify goods and services and develop brand loyalty. Trade marks also strengthen the effectiveness of advertising. Over time, trade marks develop their own brand identity independent of the goods and services they promote. This is particularly relevant as trade marks are increasingly promoted and used in modern media, such as the Internet. Trade marks on the Internet may be used to distinguish the goods and services of one undertaking from those of another, or without reference to relevant goods and services. When trade marks are used in relation to specific goods or services on the Internet, trade mark infringement can be dealt with in much the same way as it would be in any other media. Problems arise when trade marks are used on the Internet without any reference to the goods or services to which they relate. Not all countries have legislation which allows trade mark owners to protect their trade marks against such unauthorised use. Trade marks can be used on the Internet without reference to goods and services in domain names, links, metatags, pop-up ads, framing and spam messages. Such use of trade marks may be either legally justified or constitute trade mark infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Starbucks (HK) Limited V
    ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Starbucks (HK) Limited v. XYZ.com LLC Case No. LRO2013-0029 1. The Parties The Objector/Complainant (the “Objector”) is Starbucks (HK) Limited of Hong Kong, China, represented by Dechert LLP, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Applicant/Respondent (the “Applicant”) is XYZ.com LLC of Carson City, Nevada, the United States of America, represented by John Berryhill of the United States. 2. The applied-for gTLD string The applied-for gTLD string is <.now>. 3. Procedural History The Legal Rights Objection (the “Objection”) was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “WIPO Center”) on March 13, 2013 pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”). In accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure, the WIPO Center has completed the review of the Objection on March 21, 2013 and has determined that the Objection complies with the requirements of the Procedure and the World Intellectual Property Organization Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution for Existing Legal Rights Objections (the “WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution”). In accordance with Article 11(a) of the Procedure, the WIPO Center formally notified the Applicant of the Objection, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2013. In accordance with Article 11(b) and relevant communication provisions of the Procedure, the Response was timely filed with the WIPO Center on March 17, 2013. The WIPO Center appointed Dr. Thomas Legler as the Panel in this matter on June 15, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted.
    [Show full text]
  • Parallel Trade in Trademarked Pharmaceuticals in Europe
    FACULTY OF LAW University of Lund Master of European Affairs programme, Law Ling Fan Parallel Trade in Trademarked Pharmaceuticals in Europe Finding a solution for China Master thesis Supervisor Hans Henrik Lidgard Field of study Intellectual Property Right Law Semester Spring 2006 Contents SUMMARY 1 PREFACE 2 ABBREVIATIONS 3 1 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Purpose and Delimitations 4 1.2 Methodology 4 1.3 Outline 5 2 WHAT IS PARALLEL TRADE? 6 2.1 The Definition of Parallel Trade 6 2.2 The Reasons for Price Differences 7 2.3 Parallel Trade in Practice 8 2.4 The Debate on Parallel Trade 8 2.5 Parallel Trade and the Principle of Exhaustion 9 3 ARE BARRIERS TO PARALLEL TRADE INCONSISTENT WITH WTO LAW? 11 3.1 GATT 11 3.2 TRIPS Agreement 12 3.3 The Doha Declaration 12 4 THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE 14 4.1 A Brief Review of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe 14 4.2 The Impact of Parallel Trade in Medicines within the EU 14 4.3 The European Legal Framework 16 4.3.1 Primary Law 16 4.3.2 The European Trade Mark Directive 16 4.3.3 The Community Trade Mark Regulation 17 4.4 Case Law 19 4.4.1 The Silhouette Case 19 4.4.1.1 Facts 19 4.4.1.2 Advocate General’s Opinion 20 4.4.1.3 The Court’s Decision 21 4.4.1.4 Comment 21 4.4.2 The Sebago Case 22 4.4.3 Davidoff (and Levi) Case 23 4.4.3.1 Facts 23 4.4.3.2 Advocate General’s Opinion 24 4.4.3.3 The ECJ's Decision 25 4.4.3.4 Comment 26 4.4.4 Van Doren Case 27 4.4.4.1 Facts 27 4.4.4.2 Advocate General's Opinion 27 4.4.4.3 The ECJ’s Decision 28 4.4.4.4 Comment 28 4.5 Conclusion 28 5 THE CHINESE PERSPECTIVE 30 5.1 The
    [Show full text]
  • Making a Mark
    Making a Mark An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Intellectual Property for Business Series Number 1 Publications in the “Intellectual Property for Business” series: 1. Making a Mark: An Introduction to Trademarks and Brands for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 900.1 2. Looking Good: An Introduction to Industrial Designs for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 498.1 3. Inventing the Future: An Introduction to Patents for Small and Medium- sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 917.1 4. Creative Expression: An Introduction to Copyright and Related Rights for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. WIPO publication No. 918 5. In Good Company: Managing Intellectual Property Issues in Franchising. WIPO publication No. 1035 All publications are available to download free of charge at: www.wipo.int/publications Making a Mark An Introduction to Trademarks for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Intellectual Property for Business Series Number 1 The user is allowed to reproduce, distribute, adapt, translate and publicly perform this publication, including for commer- cial purposes, without explicit permission, provided that the content is accompanied by an acknowledgement that WIPO is the source and that it is clearly indicated if changes were made to the original content. Adaptation/translation/derivatives should not carry any of- ficial emblem or logo, unless they have been approved and validated by WIPO. Please contact us via the WIPO website to obtain permission. For any derivative work, please include the following disclaim- er: “The Secretariat of WIPO assumes no liability or respon- sibility with regard to the transformation or translation of the original content.” © WIPO, 2017 When content published by WIPO, such as images, graphics, First published 2006 trademarks or logos, is attributed to a third party, the user of such content is solely responsible for clearing the rights with World Intellectual Property Organization the right holder(s).
    [Show full text]