07.07.2008
Posted in Trademarks, Courts and Cases, China, Japan at 11:44 am by TMSJ
Japanese cosmetics maker Shiseido Co., Ltd. announced that it has sued Chinese companies in China for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court accepted two cases initiated by Shiseido against Shanghai Jingdian Cosmetics Co. Ltd., Shanghai Roumey Bio-Technology Co. Ltd., Shanghai Xiaoxian Meiye Bio-Technology Co. Ltd. and their founders, Li Wei and Ma Yan.
Shiseido owns the Chinese trademarks “SHISEIDO” and 资生堂 (Zishengtang), while the defendants have been using the marks “Shidoas” and 资生堂雅姿 (Zishengtangyazi) on their cosmetics products.
Ma Yan also registered a company in Hong Kong with the trade name “资生堂雅姿” (Zishengtangyazi).
In Shiseido’s view, the trademarks which are used by the defendant parties are confusingly similar to Shiseido’s trademarks registered in China. The use of 资生堂 (Shiseido or – Chinese – Zishengtang) in the trade name of the Hong Kong company might confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods.
Shiseido requested the five defendants to stop the infringement, publish an apology in newspapers and pay 1.89 million yuan (about 172,440 EUR) in compensation.
Permalink
13.03.2008
Posted in Trademarks, Courts and Cases, Japan at 18:05 pm by TMSJ
The case we would like to introduce today is not recent news (it was already decided in January 2006), but it has an interesting company law background.
In 1998, the plaintiff, Kränzle Japan KK, became the distributor for products of the German company I. Kränzle GmbH in Japan. Three years later, the plaintiff suffered business difficulties and was consequently unable to obatin a letter of credit. The plaintiff’s managing director was, however, able to secure the cooperation of another company (company A) for importing the products via a jointly owned newly established company. In November 2001, company A agreed to the establishment of the joint venture, but revoked the agreement a short while later, due to doubts about the plaintiff’s credit-worthiness. Instead of jointly importing the products, company A was now negotiating for an exclusive license to import and sell Kränzle products in Japan. The negotiations were successful and company A became the sole distributor for Kränzle products.
On December 19, 2001, soon after A had revoked the agreement with the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s managing director himself applied for the registration of the subject trademark which was identical with the Kränzle house mark as used by the I. Kränzle GmbH (Germany). The trademark was granted, but later invalidated by the JPO as contravening public order and thus violating article 4 (1) (vii) of the Japanese Trademark Act. The JPO criticized the “wrongful purpose” and “lack of social legitimacy” of the registration.
The plaintiff appealed the JPO’s decision and insisted on his right to registering the trademark in his name. The judges of the IP High Court dismissed the claim following the considerations of the JPO: Since the Kränzle trademark is a “house mark” of I. Kränzle GmbH, no third party is allowed to obtain the registration of the trademark without the consent of I. Kränzle GmbH. When applying for the trademark registration, the plaintiff just pretended to have such consent, in order to wrongfully obtain the registration. The matter should not be simply considered as a matter of private interest, but as a disturbance of the public order of business transactions and breach of international good faith, falling under article 4 (1) (vii) of the Japanese Trademark Act.
Source
Permalink
28.11.2007
Posted in Courts and Cases, China, Japan at 8:23 am by TMSJ
Shortly after Ryohin Keikaku, another Japanese company has gained a court victory in China in IP matters:
Audio equipment maker Kenwood Corporation announced recently that it had won all cases against Chinese companies over infringement of its trademarks, copyrights and design patents.
Kenwood had brought forth infringement claims against three Chinese companies (Fujian Top Way Intelligent Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Fuqing Rongwei Communications Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yichangyuan High Technology Co., Ltd.) with the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court.
Kewood started the lawsuits because of alleged trademark infringement and violation of the Act Against Unfair Competition, copyright infringement, and design patent infringement of wireless radio equipment. The Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court decided in favor of the Japanese company, so Kenwood won all three lawsuits in Beijing in the first instance. The defendants appealed the decisions to the Beijing People’s High Court.
In a fourth lawsuit, Kenwood sued Fujian Top Way over copyright violation with the aim to stop Fujian Top Way copying and distributing software over the internet for setting the frequency of Kenwood’s wireless radio equipment. The court ruled also in favor of Kenwood and again, Fujian Top Way also filed an appeal, in this case with the Fujian People’s High Court.
The judges of the appellate courts in Beijing and Fujian upheld the lower courts’ decisions: The Beijing High People’s Court and Fujian High People’s Court ordered the Chinese companies to pay a total amount of 4.3 million yuan (about 66.65 million JPY/(US $580,300) in damages to Kenwood for selling Kenwood look-alike transceivers labelled ”Kenwei”. They also ordered the three companies to pay damages, stop manufacturing and selling copies of Kenwood products, stop copying and distributing Kenwood software, and issue public apologies in magazines and on their websites.
Kenwood announced that they will continue to promote activities to stop infringements of their intellectual property rights.
Source
Permalink
22.11.2007
Posted in Trademarks, Courts and Cases, China, Japan at 10:39 am by TMSJ
The trademark dispute between the Japanese company Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. and Jet Best Investment Co., Ltd., Hong Kong (JBI) has now finally been decided by the Beijing People`s High Court in the last instance. All in all, the legal proceedings had been going on for more than seven years.
Muji is the abbrevation for mujirushi ryôhin, which can be translated as “unlabeled superior article”. It is the brand name used by Ryohin Keikaku in overseas markets.
The trademark “MUJI” was first used by Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. in 1980. In 1984, Ryohin Keikaku registered the “MUJI” for clothes in Japan. Meanwhile, in 1991 the company registered “MUJI” and “Mujirushi Ryohin” in Hong Kong and later in several other countries such as the U.K. and France.
In 1999 Ryohin Keikaku decided to apply for the registration of the trademarks “MUJI” and “Mujirushi Ryohin” in mainland China and had to find out that these trademarks had already been registered in the name of JBI since 1995. Ryohin Keikaku filed for the cancellation of the trademarks in question with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), which ruled in favor of cancellation of both trademarks of JBI in November 2005. The TRAB stated that Ryohin Keikaku had used the trademarks prior to the registrations of JBI and that JBI had even advertised products with the trademarks in question as “Japanese brands”.
However, the decision of the TRAB could not become effective, since JBI appealed the decision with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, again without much success, as the Court dismissed the claim.
Finally, JBI brought the case before the Beijing People`s High Court and lost again. The judges of the Beijing People`s High Court decided the trademarks of JBI have to be cancelled. Finally, a long time lawsuit came to an end.
Source: Press release of Ryohin Keikaku
Permalink
14.11.2007
Posted in Trademarks, Courts and Cases, China at 22:00 pm by TMSJ
There has been a surprinsing development in the lawsuit filed by Wahaha Food Co. (a joint venture formed by the French dairy maker Danone and the Chinese Hangzhou Wahaha Group) against the Chinese Trade Mark Office (CTMO):
A spokesman of Ogilvy & Mather, a public relations company representing Groupe Danone SA in China, told Shanghai Daily last week that the joint venture group has withdrawn the lawsuit against the CTMO. “During the legal process, we believe the facts around the written reply from the state trademark office have been clarified”.
Earlier on, it had been reported by Chinese media that Danone had had no choice than to drop the case against the CTMO as they seemed to have missed a filing deadline.
The MIP reports, however — under references close to the litigation — that the case was dropped because the Joint Venture Group had already obtained its main objective, namely a formal confirmation by the CTMO that Wahaha had not even attempted to transfer the trademarks in question to the Danone Joint Venture Group — which would be a serious breach of the joint venture agreement.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »
