This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
WELL-KNOWN MARKS IN HONG KONG JURISDICTION REPORT: HONG KONG


Kenny Leung Wenping & Co


A trademark that is entitled to protection under the Paris Convention as a well-known trademark can be protected under the Trade Marks Ordinance in Hong Kong. In determining whether a mark is well-known in Hong Kong, the registrar or the court should make references to a non- exhaustive list of factors laid down in Schedule 2 attached to the Trade Marks Ordinance. Tese factors are:


(a) Te degree of knowledge or recognition of the trademark in the relevant sectors of the public;


(b) Te duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the trademark;


(c) Te duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the trademark, including advertising or publicity and the presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods or services to which the trademark applies;


(d) Te duration and geographical area of any registrations, or any applications for registration, of the trademark, to the extent that they reflect use or recognition of the trademark;


(e) Te record of successful enforcement of rights in the trademark, in particular, the extent to which the trademark has been recognised as a well-known mark by competent authorities in foreign jurisdictions; and


(f) Te value associated with the trademark.


Section 2 of the schedule states that none of the following factors is necessary for the purpose of determining a well-known mark in Hong Kong: (a) Te trademark has been used or registered in Hong Kong;


(b) Tat an application for registration of the trademark has been filed in Hong Kong;


(c) Tat the trademark is well-known, or has been registered, in a jurisdiction other than Hong Kong;


(d) Tat an application for registration of the trademark has been filed in a jurisdiction other than Hong Kong; or


(e) Tat the trademark is well-known by the public at large in Hong Kong.


Section 12 of the Trade Marks Ordinance provides relative grounds for refusal of registration of a mark which is in conflict with an earlier trademark. Te owner of a well-known mark may rely on the relative grounds under Section 12(1)-(4) of the Trade Marks Ordinance in a case where his mark is found to be well-known and thus regarded as an earlier mark in Hong Kong; no local use of the mark is needed.


www.worldipreview.com


So far, there is no decided case under which a mark has been found to be well- known in Hong Kong. Tis is understandable because trademark owners could rely on their registered and/or unregistered trademark rights (arising from prior use of the mark in Hong Kong) to successfully oppose registration of a mark in respect of identical or similar goods/services of interest. Tus, the issue of well-known marks has not been examined thoroughly.


For protection of non-identical or similar goods/services covered by a well- known mark, one must prove, inter alia, the following under the Section 12(4) of the Trade Marks Ordinance:


(i) Te mark is well known; and


(ii) Use of the later trademark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trademark.


Te case of Premier Brands UK Ltd v. Tyhoon Europe Ltd is concerned with trademark infringement of a well-known mark for non-identical or similar goods of interest. Te UK court held that confusion was not a necessary ingredient for successful claim of trademark infringement under S.10(3) of the Trade Marks Act. Te words “without due cause” did not mean ‘in good faith’ or ‘for good and honest commercial reasons’. Te court went further to consider whether the use of the latter mark took unfair advantage of, and/or was detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the well-known mark at issue. And the stronger the distinctive character and reputation of a particular mark, the easier it would be to establish detriment to it.


Kenny Leung is an in-house counsel at Wenping & Co. He can be contacted at: kenny@wenping.com.hk


World Intellectual Property Review January/February 2012 75


“THE COURT WENT FURTHER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE USE OF THE LATTER MARK TOOK UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF, AND/OR WAS DETRIMENTAL TO, THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OR THE REPUTE OF THE WELL- KNOWN MARK AT ISSUE.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100