Trademark Service Japan
Apple Inc. has won a trademark infringement suit against a Chinese corporation named New Apple Concept Digital Technology Co. Ltd. which used a logo confusingly similar to the US company’s symbol. The Chinese company with its registered seat in Shenzhen was ordered to pay 400,000 yuan (about 58,000 dollars) to Apple Inc.
Apple Inc. registered the trademark name Apple and the apple logo when it entered China’s market in 1993.4
In a decision of October 9, 2008, the Korean Supreme Court held that an emblem on a shoe will be seen as an indication of origin and can infringe upon a similar trademark.
The Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Patent Court against Daeho Corp., a Korean shoe producer, which held the Korean company in violation of a trademark of luxury goods maker Ferragamo. Daeho’s appeal to the Supreme Court was unseccessful. The Korean shoe producer had used an emblem on shoes which the court judged similar enough to be mistaken for the logo of Ferragamo.
In a similar case, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favour of French luxury maker Louis Vuitton against a Korean handbag maker. The court held that the bags of the Korean company which were covered with an emblem consisting of the letters “L” and “V” with a square, circle, diamond and flower petal pattern, could without any doubt be confused with those of Louis Vuitton.
Both decisions seem to be simple applications of the common definition of what constitutes a trademark, so we cannot really concur with other Internet commentators heralding the “landmark character” of the Ferragamo decision.
On a side note, South Korea’s Trademark Law has been partially amended on July 1, 2007 expanding the range of possible trademarks to colour marks, hologram marks, motion marks and other types of visually perceivable objects as trademarks.
Osakana Planning Company caused quite a stir at the International Japan Seafood Show: Japanese tuna can now expect something new – an acupuncture treatment. “The Australian” reports that the company had even obtained a patent on this technique.
Toshiro Urabe, the president of the Osakana Planning Company named better taste and less dependence on chemical preservaties as the main advantages of tuna which had been treated with the famous needles.
It is still a secret where to put the needles. We were not able to obtain a copy of the patent or patent application.
As sashimi (raw fish) is very popular in Japan, it was to be expected that the Intellectual Property High Court had to deal with tuna as well, sooner or later. The court recently dismissed an appeal of a food import company, which had filed a patent application “method for processing tuna meat for preservation” which uses the carbon monoxide gas in certain kinds of smoke to preserve the tuna meat. The application was dismissed by the JPO stating there was prior art for using CO gas for processing tuna meat for preservation. The court did not follow the plaintiff’s argument that there was a difference between CO gas contained in the smoke and pure CO gas used for conservation.
The court also briefly touched the question whether this method would possibly offend public order under food sanitation laws (possibly due to the fact that tuna treated with CO gas keeps its “fresh” color longer). The anwer was left open, but one thing is clear: Matters of Tuna are not to be taken lightly in Japan.
The conflict over the ownership of the Wahaha trademark remains open, after the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled in favour of Hangzhou-based Wahaha Group (a joint venture partner of Danone), dismissing Danone’s appeal.
Danone’s spokesman anounced that the company will also appeal the new decision. Wahaha’s spokesman Shan Qining countered with the following message: “As you can see reported everywhere, we own the trademark forever.”
After the decision of the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Danone critizized that the court had failed to conduct a substantive review of the accurancy and legality of the determination of facts and application of law but had instead limited itself to a merely procedural review.
The present lawsuit is not the only one between the parties: Danone filed a lawsuit against Zong Qinghou (the founder of Wahaha) in Los Angeles, claiming more than $ 100 million in damages. The trouble amongst the joint venture partners originally arose when Wahaha was starting to sell Wahaha-branded drinks, competing directly with their joint venture. Danone argues that according to the JV agreement, the trademark “Wahaha” had to be transferred to the joint venture company.
In addition, the next arbitration hearing between the two Joint Venture partners in Stockholm is scheduled for January 2009.
After the Department of Industry and Commerce of the Zhuhai Province had confiscated a huge number of fake NEC products (mainly keyboards) in November 2006, the Japanese IT company NEC (Nippon Electric Company Ltd.) sued four Chinese companies for infringment of NEC`s trademark, which has been registered in the People’s Republic of China since 1979. NEC saw its reputation damaged by the infringement.
The Beijing Intermediate People’s Court ordered the defendants Zhuhai Yuehua Electronics Company, Zhuhai Yuehua Technology Development Company, Shenzhen Jinjijia Electronic Industry Company and Beijing Shiji Yuehua Technology Development Center to refrain from manufacturing and selling its infringing products. In addition, the four defendants have to indemnify NEC to the amount of 1.15 million yuan (about € 105,700) in damages. The court determined one million yuan to be actual damages for NEC’s lost profits and 150,000 yuan for attorneys’ fees and expenses. Originally, NEC had asked for a total of 1.5 million yuan in compensation.
