Dishonestly and without due cause

Legal context: UK trade mark law was harmonised with the laws of other EU memberstates pursuant to the Trade Marks Directive (89/104/EEC) withthe coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Since then,the English courts have sought to absorb into English jurisprudencecontinental concepts of unfair competition, and a new code relatingto the use of another's trade mark in comparative advertising.Traditionally, the English approach has been more liberal andless protective of a trade mark owner's rights than that ofcontinental jurisdictions, but since 1994 the ECJ has been calledupon to provide frequent guidance on the interpretation of expressionssuch as the "essential function" of a trade mark and the "dutyto act fairly" in relation to the legitimate interests of thetrade mark proprietor. Key points: This article examines the way in which some recent decisionsof the ECJ have led to the English courts having greater regardto the property interests of the trade mark owner and less regardto the concepts of free market competition and consumer protection.In the recent High Court case of L'Oréal and others vBellure NV and others, Lewison J made findings of infringementunder s.10(1) and (3) Trade Marks Act 1994 where he found thatthere was "free riding" on the back of the reputation of certainof L'Oreal's trade marks without there being any evidence ofconfusion or association between the trade marks and the defendants'signs. Practical significance: For trade mark owners, this change in the approach of the Englishcourts opens up new opportunities to combat look-alike productsand comparative advertisements which take unfair advantage ofthe reputation of established marks.     

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Legal context: Trade mark oppositions are routinely filed by brand owners againstan offending application or registration in either a pre-grantor a post-grant procedure before the respective national trademark office, but in Japan, there are several nuanced trade markopposition practice differences that should not be taken forgranted. Key issues: In light of persisting and recent abysmal trade mark opponentsuccess rates, favourable trade mark invalidation appeal (IA)data, and the inherent procedural handicaps against opponentsin Japan's current trade mark opposition system, Trade markowners would be better served by using Japan's trade mark IAprocedures to police against conflicting trade marks in Japanand not mechanistically file oppositions in Japan as one couldin other important trade mark jurisdictions like the USA orEurope. Practical significance: Japan's trade mark opposition and IA procedures offer complementaryoptions to police against conflicting trade marks so choosingthe right procedure is critical to its achieving the mission'ssuccess in curbing competitors' marks in the world's secondlargest free market economy.     

The new consumer and business protection regulations: another string to the brand owner's bow?

Legal context: This article assesses the impact of The Consumer Protectionfrom Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) (implementing theUnfair Commercial Practices Directive) and The Business. Protectionfrom Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (BPRs) (implementingthe consolidated and codified Misleading and Comparative AdvertisingDirective) on areas of marketing and advertising in which IPrights often become involved and the impact of the recent ECJdecisionon their application in the O2 v Hutchison 3G referencebythe Court of Appeal. Key points: The CPRs govern advertising and promotional activities aimedat consumers. Much of the consumer and business protection legislationpreviously scattered amongst various Acts has been repealedand replaced by elements of the BPRs or CPRs. In total, 36 Regulationsand Orders and 41 Acts are affected. The BPRs now govern misleadingmarketing and comparative advertising, previously dealt withunder the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations 1988.The article looks at how these Regulations may be applied insituations which interested parties currently attempt to resolveusing trade mark or passing off laws. Practical significance: The new Regulations are aimed at the protection of consumersand businesses from unscrupulous marketing and trade promotionpractices which affect their economic behaviour. Thirty-onepractices are specifically identified as automatically fallingfoul of the Regulations. Businesses will need to review theirpractices to avoid the possibility of criminal penalties includingfines and imprisonment for consenting, conniving, or recklessofficers of businesses involved in such practices. Until the ECJ decision in O2 v Hutchison 3G, it had been thought(from Jacob LJ's finding in his reference to the ECJ in thiscase) that trade mark law had no role to play in comparativeadvertising as it was specifically provided for under the ComparativeAdvertising Directive and hence under the BPRs. Since thesedid not provide an individual right of action (the OFT or TradingStandards alone may enforce), it left trade mark owners withlittle muscle in comparative advertising situations. However,the ECJ made clear that where practices fail to satisfy thecriteria set out in the Directive for legitimate comparativeadvertising, trade mark law may be invoked as a remedy. Thiswill be a relief to major brand owners for whom comparativeadvertising is commonly a concern.     

The overlap between registered Community designs and Community trade marks

Legal context: Community trade marks and registered Communitydesigns have co-existed since April 2003. The relevant Europeanlegislation permits some subject matter to be registered undereither or both of these regimes. Key points In the absence of an express prohibition, it wasperhaps inevitable that the owners of distinctive designs wouldconsider registering them as trade marks and, conversely, thatthe owners of certain non-conventional trade marks might takeadvantage of opportunities for cheap and speedy registrationunder the designs system. The ability to obtain registered Communitydesigns and trade marks for the same subject matter is consideredhere. Practical significance A party seeking to protect the designof a distinctive product shape or its packaging may be ableto register it as a Community trade mark where it has missedthe boat for claiming novelty as a registered design, or wherea pre-existing design right is about to expire. On the otherhand, a distinctive and new logo or get-up which needs quickand cheap protection may benefit from being registered as aCommunity design. Neither the rights owners, nor those againstwhom they seek to assert their rights, should accept the validityof a registered Community design without question since thereis no substantive examination procedure. However, where valid,it can provide a powerful alternative to a trade mark and auseful additional weapon against unfair competition.     

WTO《政府采购协定》的几个问题

政府采购是国际贸易自由化面临的最重要问题之一 ,乌拉圭回合达成的《政府采购协定》 ,是一个没有完全纳入WTO多边纪律的复边协定。在WTO框架内推进政府采购自由化的首要任务 ,是扩大《政府采购协定》的成员数量。发展中国家加入WTO《政府采购协定》的重要条件 ,是参照GATT的经验作法 ,允许发展中国家和最不发达国家继续保持相当程度和可接受形式的民族产业保护措施。中国开放政府采购市场和加入WTO《政府采购协定》的准备工作 ,应当是充分利用政府采购贸易壁垒 ,通过全国性统一立法 ,尽快建立起高度竞争性的政府采购市场机制和符合国际通常作法的政府采购管理制度 ,提高国内产业在政府采购市场中的竞争力和对政府采购国际自由化的适应能力。     

Frederick Mostert

Frederick Mostert, one-time International Trademark AssociationPresident and author of a leading text on Famous Marks, spearheadsthe branding and trade mark protection activities of luxurygoods house Richemont. Here, he pauses from his hectic lifeto tell us a little about himself. How did you first become interested in IP? As     

国际投资与环境保护的法律冲突与协调——以晚近区域性投资条约及相关案例为研究对象

经济一体化所带来的环境损害已成为国际社会关注的焦点问题之一。国际社会已开始尝试运用贸易投资条约防范贸易投资自由化带来的消极环境影响。以《北美自由贸易协定》为代表的国际投资法立法新模式,在其投资章节中规定了环境条款,试图兼顾投资自由和环境保护两种利益需求。虽然实践表明,该协定仍然没有有效协调投资与环境保护之间的关系,并在执行上出现了诸多法律冲突,但该协议所彰显的贸易投资自由化不得以牺牲环境为代价的立法理念和原则,可能会成为未来国际经济法中重要的理念和原则,将会对未来国际投资法和国际经济法的发展产生重大而深远的影响。     

Where trade marks reach the limits of their enforceability?

Trade Marks at the Limit is a volume edited by Jeremy Phillips,intellectual property consultant (Slaughter and May) and ProfessorialFellow (Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute). The core theme of the book is the balancing exercise betweenthe interests of trade mark proprietors and the interests ofcompetitors, business partners, like retailers, consumers, andthe     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区知识产权保护研究

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区的建立对推进国内改革与世界市场开放具有里程碑式的意义。我国的自由贸易试验区属于自由贸易园区(FTZ),不同于自由贸易协定下的自由贸易区(FTA),也不同于传统保税区,具有"境内关外"和"一线放开、二线管住"的特征。自由贸易试验区的贸易便利化举措必然使其成为知识产权侵权避风港的可能性急剧上升。但由于相应制度的缺失和认识的偏差,自由贸易试验区可能成为知识产权海关执法的模糊区甚至空白区,同时我国目前的知识产权保护体系与自由贸易试验区寻求的便捷、高效的知识产权市场监管模式和纠纷解决机制相距甚远。从相关国际条约的立法和国内外自由贸易园区的实践来看,在自由贸易园区内实施更加严格的知识产权保护是现在和未来国际知识产权保护的必然趋势。因此,在自由贸易试验区内应加强知识产权海关保护、建立知识产权市场监管体系、完善知识产权纠纷解决机制。     

Protecting Intellectual Property on The Internet. Experience and Strategies of Trade Mark Owners in a Time of Chance

It is often stated that the protection of names, brands and trade marks on the Internet is a critical issue for intellectual property (IP) owners. However, while tales of infringement abound, there have been few court cases. IP specialists looking to establish a policy for the protection of names on the Internet need to assess the scale of the problem. What evidence of infringement or abuse exists? How are trade marks at risk-just in the domain name system or on other parts of the Internet? Can the courts or registration authorities be relied upon to support intellectual property owners? Is affordable net protection a myth or a reality for trade mark owners? This article attempts to quantify the risk of infringement or abuse of intellectual property, to examine measures of control proposed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and to suggest policies that can be adopted to minimise the risk of infringement and to maximise the chance of successful action against infringers.     

New developments in the law of passing off: misrepresentation by silence

The High Court recently held that misrepresentation by silencecan constitute an actionable misrepresentation. A trader maymake a misrepresentation by failing to correct a self-inducedmistaken belief of a customer, where the trader takes advantageof that mistaken belief. Failure of a trader to disabuse customersof the impression that they are dealing with the brand ownermay be sufficient to constitute passing off. Brand owners welcomethis decision as it provides protection against new entrantsto the market who seek to piggyback on the success of theirbrand or trade mark.     

Post-sale confusion

Legal context: Recent case law has established that post-sale confusion isrelevant to determining whether registered trade mark infringementhas occurred under UK law. This raises questions as to whatthat relevance is in practice and as to whether the common lawof passing off should develop accordingly so as to take post-saleconfusion into account. Key points: In this article, the authors review the case law on the relevanceof post-sale confusion to actions for trade mark infringementand passing off. They conclude that U K law does regard post-saleconfusion as relevant to trade mark infringement, provided thatthere is also sufficient similarity on a mark-for-sign basisat the point of sale. They argue that the tort of passing offshould develop in the same way. Practical significance: Brands can be harmed even where there is no confusion at thepoint of sale. The law's development to recognize this providesimportant weapons for brand owners, particularly in the contextof ‘look-alike’ products.     

The W***D C*P of 2*1*: FIFA's intellectual property rights in South Africa

Legal context: This article focuses on the relationship between trade markrights and other forms of statutory protection. Key points: FIFA is the proprietor of a number of trade mark registrationsin South Africa. The strength of these registrations is discussedand the view taken that a number are open to attack, in termsof both distinctiveness and user requirements. It is then shownthat, if statutory protection is given for the same words andphrases, the weaknesses of the trade mark registrations willbe avoided. Practical significance: The article serves as an illustration of the manner in whichinternational sporting bodies attempt to extend their IP protectionbeyond the bounds of existing legislation.     

TRIPS-plus条款的扩张及中国的应对策略——以药品的专利保护为视角

近年以来,美国与欧盟等发达国家利用TRIPS协议的弹性规定,在与其他国家签订的自由贸易协定中大量加入TRIPS-plus条款。这些条款通过对TRIPS的拓展以及限制来提高知识产权保护标准,在药品的专利保护领域尤为突出。实践证明,TRIPS-plus条款严重影响了发展中国家药品的可及性。我国作为大量依靠仿制药品的发展中国家,在国内立法以及签署自由贸易区协定等国际条约时,应当对TRIPS-plus条款保持高度警惕,审慎引入专利链接制度,为数据独占保护设置限制条件,保留强制许可、平行进口等TRIPS允许的弹性条款,尽量为国内政策预留一些选择空间。     

The Governance of Cross-Border Data Flows in Trade Agreements: Is the Cptpp Framework an Ideal Way Out?

The regulations of cross-border data flows is a growing challenge for the international community. International trade agreements, however, appear to be pioneering legal methods to cope, as they have grappled with this issue since the 1990s. The World Trade Organization (WTO) rules system offers a partial solution under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which covers aspects related to cross-border data flows. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) have also been perceived to provide forward-looking resolutions. In this context, this article analyzes why a resolution to this issue may be illusory. While they regulate cross-border data flows in various ways, the structure and wording of exception articles of both the CPTPP and USMCA have the potential to pose significant challenges to the international legal system. The new system, attempting to weigh societal values and economic development, is imbalanced, often valuing free trade more than individual online privacy and cybersecurity. Furthermore, the inclusion of poison-pill clauses is, by nature, antithetical to cooperation. Thus, for the international community generally, and China in particular, cross-border data flows would best be regulated under the WTO-centered multilateral trade law system.     

Hong Kong follows ECJ's 'genuine trade mark use' approach

In two applications for revocation of the two Regal trade marks,the Hong Kong Trade Marks Registry recognized trans-shipmentof goods through Hong Kong by an importer and manufacturer asbeing sufficient to establish use of a trade mark under section52(3) of the Trade Mark Ordinance; however, the use of the markmust be in the form as registered or in a form which differsin elements which do not alter the distinctive character ofthe mark and would require use of any prominent devices withinthe mark.     

《中美经贸协议》中商业秘密的规定及我国应对路径

商业秘密的保护已经成为了《中美经贸协议》规制的主要问题,《中美经贸协议》对我国商业秘密保护提出了更高的要求。通过从文本格式和文本内容两个角度分析《中美经贸协议》关于商业秘密的规定,指出我国商业秘密保护法律模式及现行法律关于商业秘密保护的规定存在的不足和缺陷。我国应当从宏观上转变商业秘密保护的法律模式建立商业秘密专门法保护制度,现阶段应当加强我国涉外经贸中商业秘密保护的法律规范、修改商业秘密的刑事保护规定、增大政府商业秘密保护中的义务。     

From watchdog to sneak: the UK's new trade mark notification regime

Legal context: This article discusses the move from ex officio refusal of trademark applications based on relative grounds, to a notificationregime. The order making power for this derives from Section8 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Owners of qualifying earlier registered rights, in respect ofwhich registration of the subject application would be consideredto lead to a likelihood of confusion, will be notified of thelater subject application, and must decide for themselves whetherto oppose. Key points: The article examines the justification for such a shift, interms of the need for a proper evidence and submission basedevaluation of the respective marks, as well as the need to takeall market factors into account in any evaluation. It also addressesthe legal and cultural shift entailed in such a change. Finally,the article attempts to set out three objective measures bywhich an evaluation of success could be measured. Practical significance: The change will affect all those who already have, or will have,registered trade mark rights in the UK. The author's concernin particular is for those who will be receiving notificationletters and what their response might be - given that many willbe unrepresented. The author also believes that more notificationswill be sent out than marks that are currently ‘cited’.