DOCSLIB.ORG

Opposition to Trade Mark Application No. 303659310Ab

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. 4. The opposition hearing took place before me on 5 June 2019. Mr. Philips B.F. Wong of Counsel, instructed by Rebecca Lo & Co, represented the opponent. Mr. Ling Chun Wai, Counsel, instructed by Hogan Lovells, represented the applicant. Grounds of opposition 5. In the Grounds of Opposition, it is claimed that the opponent, a company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, United States of America, is a well-known seller of a wide range of beverage products and the owner of a family of trade marks incorporating the word “MONSTER” including but not limited to “MONSTER”, “MONSTER ENERGY”, “M MONSTER ENERGY”, “M MONSTER ENERGY Device”, “ASSAULT M MONSTER ENERGY”, “ASSAULT M MONSTER ENERGY Device”, “J AVA M O N S T E R ”, “MONSTER REHAB”, “MONSTER PREDATOR”, “M MONSTER MYTANT”, “MONSTER ENERGY + JUICE KHAOS”, “M MONSTER M-80 ENERGY + JUICE Device”, “MONSTER KHAOS ENERGY + JUICE”, “J AVA M O N S T E R BIG BLACK”, “MONSTER M-80”, “MONSTER DETOX”, “MONSTER REHABITUATE”, “MONSTER UNLEADED”, “MONSTER ENERGY ULTRA RED”, “MONSTER RIPPER”, “X-PRESSO MONSTER”, and “JUICE MONSTER” (collectively the “Opponent’s 2 Marks”). Representations of the Opponent’s Marks (25 of them in total) are shown in Schedule A to the Grounds of Opposition. Some of these marks (14 of them in total) have been registered in Hong Kong (collectively the “Opponent’s HK Marks”). Representations of the Opponent’s HK Marks are shown in Schedule B to the Grounds of Opposition. 6. The opponent opposes registration of the subject mark under sections 11(4), 11(5) and 12 of the Ordinance. Counter-statement 7. The applicant filed a counter-statement on the specified Form T7 on 17 November 2016, attached to it is a statement entitled “Counter Statement” which denies all the grounds of opposition and identifies the co-existence of exemplary groups of trademark registrations in Hong Kong for marks containing the word “MONSTER” in respect of identical or similar goods. The opponent’s evidence 8. The opponent’s evidence comprises two statutory declarations of Rodney Cyril Sacks, the first one made on 20 April 2017 (“Sacks’ 1st Declaration”) was filed as evidence in support of opposition under Rule 18 of the Rules, the second one made on 19 April 2018 (“Sacks’ 2nd Declaration”) was filed as evidence in reply under Rule 20 of the Rules. Mr. Sacks is the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of Monster Beverage Corporation and its subsidiaries including the opponent which authorized him to make the statutory declarations on its behalf to oppose the subject application. The facts he deposed to in his statutory declarations are based on his own personal knowledge or from information derived by him from the opponent’s records. 3 9. According to Mr. Sacks, the opponent is in the business of designing, creating, developing, producing, marketing and selling energy drinks and other beverages such as natural sodas, fruit juices, iced teas etc. It is claimed that the opponent has been widely acknowledged as a leader in the beverages industry. A number of recognition and awards were received by the Opponent e.g. “Beverage Company of the Year” by The Beverage Forum in 2004 and 2006 and “Large Beverage Company of the Year” in 2009, Forbes’ “Top 200 Best Small Companies” in 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, Fortune Magazine’s “100 Fastest Growing Companies” in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, and “One of the Most Innovative Companies” by Forbes in 2014, 2015 and 2016, etc.1 10. The opponent has sought registration of its trade marks which include “MONSTER”, “MONSTER ENERGY”, and the claw marks “ ” and “ ” in many countries and areas worldwide including Hong Kong. Exhibit “RCS-1” to Sacks’ 1st Declaration contains a list of registered and pending trade marks of the opponent in Hong Kong.2 11. It is claimed that the MONSTER ENERGY beverage line has been tremendously successful since its launch in the United States in April 2002, and MONSTER ENERGY drinks started selling outside of the United States in 2003. At the time of Sacks’ 1st Declaration in April 2017, MONSTER ENERGY drinks were available in approximately 120 nations and territories around the world, and worldwide retail sales exceeded 3 billion cans per year. Over the years, the opponent has expanded the range of beverage products sold under the MONSTER ENERGY marks. Apart from the traditional line of energy beverages, the opponent has other lines of energy drinks such as tea-based non-carbonated energy drinks, dairy-based coffee plus energy drinks, dairy-based protein energy shakes, etc. According to Sacks’ 1st Declaration, MONSTER ENERGY drinks were the best-selling energy drinks in the United States and the second best-selling worldwide by unit volume. Worldwide gross sales increased from US$1.95 billion in 2011 to US$3.11 billion in 2015.3 1 Sacks’ 1 st Declaration, para 4. 2 Paragraph 6 of Sacks’ 1st SD 3 Sacks’ 1 st Declaration, paras 8-12 & 17. 4 12. The opponent launched the MONSTER energy drinks in Hong Kong in April 2012. From April 2012 to December 2015, it had sold more than 2.9 million cans of MONSTER energy drinks in Hong Kong amounting to sales of approximately US$2.9 million. 4 Exhibit “RCS-2” is an undated photograph of a can of MONSTER energy drink which is claimed to have been distributed in Hong Kong. Exhibit “RCS-3” is copy of an invoice dated 17 September 2015 issued by Monster Energy Hong Kong with respect to a product with the description of “Monster Absolutely Zero”. 13. According to Mr. Sacks, in Hong Kong, the opponent’s MONSTER energy drinks have been sold in over 3,000 retail outlets, including retail stores, gas stations and other outlets such as drug stores and on premise. Specific trade outlets include 7-Eleven, Circle K and ParknShop stores.5 14. Mr. Sacks claims that the opponent’s marketing strategy is not conventional in that it does not use direct television or radio advertising to promote its marks. The majority of its marketing, advertising and promotional budget are spent on athlete endorsements and sponsoring athletic competitions and other events. In particular, its marketing focus includes international events, including events that are webcast on the Internet where its target market of young males spend a great deal of time. The advertising, marketing and promotions that it carries in relation to its marks are all about image, and the image of MONSTER energy drinks is “edgy and aggressive”. It is considered that the athletes and events that the opponent sponsors tend to be edgy and aggressive, or extreme, and that it is the indirect and non-traditional forms of advertising such as sponsorship and product placement which are instrumental in reaching the opponent’s target market.6 Exhibit “RCS-4” are some photographs of the opponent’s sponsored athletes bearing the Opponent’s Marks. Exhibit “RCS-5” are photographs showing the point of sale for MONSTER energy drinks sold in Hong Kong. 15. The opponent’s worldwide expenditure since 2002 in advertising, marketing and promoting its MONSTER energy drinks was over US$4.6 billion, and over US$2.04 million was spent between April 2012 and December 2015 in marketing and 4 Sacks’ 1 st Declaration, para.13. 5 Sacks’ 1 st Declaration, para.16. 6 Sacks’ 1 st Declaration, paras 20-24. 5 promotional activities in Hong Kong to promote MONSTER energy drinks.7 16. In Hong Kong, the opponent has participated in a number of events such as the 2012 Animation-Comic-Game entertainment and book fair. It is said that the Opponent’s kiosk at the event featured a tent branded with the MONSTER marks etc. It is also claimed that at the opponent’s official Hong Kong launch party held at Hyde Club on 23 August 2012, the MONSTER marks were prominently displayed throughout the event venue. The opponent also sponsored several action sports competitions in Hong Kong during 2012 including the Hong Kong X-Battle BMX contest, the MX Club Mountain Bike Festival, the DC Monster Energy APAC Skate Tour, and the Monster Energy HK Wakeboard Championship to promote its products and the MONSTER marks.8 No exhibit has been produced for the aforesaid events.
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]
  • 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]
  • Intellectual Property Newsletter
    Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter April 2011 Intellectual Property For advice and information on Hogan Hanoi Paris Lovells' Intellectual Property practice Gregory Buhyoff Marie-Aimée de Dampierre please contact: [email protected] [email protected] m Alicante Hong Kong Verena von Bomhard Henry Wheare Philadelphia [email protected] [email protected] Katherine R. Leibowitz [email protected] Amsterdam London Bert Oosting Adam Cooke [email protected] [email protected] San Francisco K.T. (Sunny) Cherian Beijing Los Angeles [email protected] Deanna Wong Stephen H. Kay [email protected] [email protected] Shanghai Geoffrey Lin Berlin Madrid [email protected] Christoph Wagner Burkhart Goebel [email protected] [email protected] Tokyo Lloyd Parker Colorado Springs Milan [email protected] William J. Kubida Luigi Mansani [email protected] [email protected] Warsaw Ewa Kacperek Denver Moscow [email protected] Clay C. James Natalia Gulyaeva [email protected] [email protected] Washington D.C. Düsseldorf Munich Raymond A. Kurz Andreas von Falck Matthias Koch [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Frankfurt New York Nils Rauer Eric J. Lobenfeld [email protected] [email protected] Hamburg Northern Virginia Leopold von Gerlach Timothy J. Lyden [email protected] [email protected] Contents EDITORIAL Germany 17 The Early Bird ...? — Consequences of Asserting a Claim TRADEMARKS AND BRANDS 1 for Equivalent Patent Infringement Only in Last Instance European Union 1 United Kingdom 18 UK plans to enter the patent boxing ring Transit of Counterfeit Goods Through the European Union Same Assessment of Similarity Between Signs Under Article 2 USA 19 8(1)(b) and Article (8)(5) CTMR; Reputation of a Mark is ResQNet.com, Inc.
    [Show full text]