世界各國商標註冊~品牌行銷與商標布局
提供與企業跨國品牌行銷的國際貿易與商標法律事務協商、管理與爭議處理。全球專利商標布局、管理與維權。新創公司、投資併購與證券交易。商品及服務國際貿易合約安排。企業及民眾常用合約範本、各種民刑、行政訴訟的介紹。以供參考用之法規介紹,案例簡介、法庭觀察及法律小品文章與範例以供企業與網民參閱。本部落格的文章及其回覆,不代表本所的正式法律意見。如需進行各種商業交易的合法審查、各國商務契約的草擬談判、提起訴訟或應訊應訴、專利布局授權、商標布局授權,如需本所正式法律意見、法律顧問服務、智慧財產權顧問服務、專利商標註冊申請服務、各種智權爭議及訴訟,請就近聯繫台北所02-27595585,新竹所03-6675569。E-mail:info@zoomlaw.net。本所詳細資訊請自行參閱:http://www.zoomlaw.net/files/11-1138-725.php 執行合夥律師 范國華博士敬啟 本部落格於2015.12.07成立。

一個中國餐廳名稱如何自一般商標變為著名商標

中國內蒙古小肥羊餐廳股份有限公司(下稱:「小肥羊餐廳」)是一個餐廳服務業者。在1999年公司成立時名稱為包頭市小肥羊一般連鎖商店,在2000年11月1日,改名為包頭市小肥羊餐廳;直到2001年才使用現在的名稱。

2000年,周文清(音譯)與包頭小肥羊簽立加盟合約,2001年8月16日,周文清以穆斯林小肥羊旅館之名義與小肥羊餐聽簽屬加盟合約之補充條款,允許穆斯林小肥羊旅館持續經營已經設立於石家莊的兩間餐廳分店,但是不得開立新餐廳且不得運用小肥羊餐聽之圖像及文字行銷。

簽約3年後,周文清與其他人取得註冊設立河北匯特內蒙古小肥羊連鎖股份有限公司(下稱:「匯特」)。周文清是該新公司之法定代理人,並擁有百分之60之股份。匯特之後成立諸多連鎖餐廳並使用小肥羊為商店之文字、招牌以及廣告。由於周文清及匯特持續使用小肥羊文字,小肥羊餐廳以不公平競爭以及小肥羊商標侵權提起訴訟。

法院第一審裁判

在第一審訴訟時,法院認為小肥羊是小羊的一個通稱,用於餐廳時是在描述餐廳所提供之服務,因此,該名稱並不足以符合商標權之保護。在國內小肥羊名稱使用於許多餐廳,並且在中餐產業中是一個使用於快煮羊肉片之通用名稱。法院認定小肥羊餐聽無權禁止匯特及周文清使用小肥羊名稱。

首先申請小肥羊商標者為內蒙古金玉集團股份有限公司。該公司於2001年9月14日申請,2002年7月9日核駁,理由為該商標是敘述服務之特色。小肥羊餐廳首次於2001年申請小肥羊商標,但是商標局拒絕其申請,理由為小肥羊僅為一般性名稱。而小肥羊餐聽申請小肥羊之於第29類及42類分別於2002年10月7日及2003年1月7日獲准。

法院第二審裁判

在2004年12月12日,第二審審理過程中,商標局決定小肥羊此三個中文字為著名商標,並於2004年12月20日獲得註冊(No. 3043421)。

結論

本件顯示原本在中國為一般性之商標,之後因為經濟上很成功而依照第二含意取得商標。本件雖然在第一審被認定為一般性文字,但是最終註冊成功並被第二審法院認為是著名商標。小肥羊餐廳獲得中國商標法給予最高等級之保護。

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()


申請越南商標的8個提醒

雖然越南尚未成為尼斯協定的正式成員,但是官方在商標申請、計算官方收費以及商標保障範圍時,已經開始採用尼斯分類第10版之分類方法。因此,任何根據尼斯分類各類下商品和服務列表之(i)字母列表或(ii)特定代碼申請之商品或服務,在形式審查以及實際審查過程中都會被順利接受。反過來說,尼斯協定之「一般說明」以及其他審查觀點,都會被審查員適用於審查程序中。

下列八個提醒是越南永恆智慧產權代理人事務所關於越南商品服務之商標申請說明:

1. 預估費用

依據越南商標法,官費之計算標準是基於申請類別以及各類別增加申請之商品及服務。如果申請的商品或服務超過6項時,申請人要負擔額外費用。

為了估算費用,不可以依照尼斯分類之各類標題以及商品與服務之一般項目申請,務必要以明確的項目來申請。

2. 商標申請之語文

法律規定所有商標申請都需要以越南文為之。但是,依據本所經驗以及目前實務,以雙語文(越南文及英文)敘述商品和服務會有助於越南國家智慧產權局(NOIP)之判斷。

特別是當商標審查員對於不清楚或是混淆之申請能夠正確了解商品服務之本質。此外,也有助於申請後對修改敘述商品的程序順利進行。

3.越南商標申請之商品服務名稱

由於越南與其他國家在文化、語言及其他方面之差異,如果可能的話,建議在新的或是不普遍的申請案提供母國以及國際名稱。此外,提供任何額外關於商品(例如功用、目的、成分/組成、或影像)之資訊,當然會有助於指定商品的最正確敘述。

4. 地區分類

除了適用尼斯分類第10版外,越南和其他東南亞國家協會(ASEAN)在當地發行了超過13,800項典型之商品和服務之地區分類( ASEAN TMclass,下稱東協商標分類)。在越南申請新商標時,使用東協商標分類之項目將利於審查順利進行,詳細東協商標分類說明請參閱www.asean-tmclass.orgwww.aseanip.org

5. 保障範圍

為了獲得最大保障範圍以及將風險降至最低,以及在對付可能的侵權行為時獲得強有力的措施,我們建議商標申請人注意下列事項:

  • 在越南對於實際上要製造或是交易之商品,申請商品或服務之正確而特定的商標項目,以及
  • 如果可能的話,申請盡可能較大範圍的其他項目指定商品服務以涵蓋或是接近製造或是交易之商品,以獲得最大範圍之保護。

例如:某公司專精於製造電動手操作鑽口機,在越南申請商標時,該公司至少應當指定2項商品,如電動手操作鑽口機以及手持工具;且有別於第7類的手操作商品

6. 多功能複合品

依據尼斯分類的一般註記,成品具有多功能複合目標(例如:收音機時鐘),可能被分類到相對應的任何功能或是預計之目的中。然而,基於越南目前實務,此類商品分類是依據審查員在審查程序的主觀觀點。在收到核駁通知申請人移轉此類商品到他類時,說服審查員將申請保持在原來的分類是一項艱鉅且費時的工作。

因此,如果移轉申請項目到其他分類並未改變商品本質或是產生額外費用時,申請人應當同意審查員意見以節省時間。

7. 特定商品服務項目之要件

基於越南現行規定,商標申請之商品服務列表之個別項下務必要以分號(;)隔開。因此,建議敘述指定商品與服務時,關於用字及文法上必須明確且一致。例如:申請人應當不要用「輪胎、煞車、底盤等配件」,應當用「汽車輪胎」「汽車煞車」「汽車底盤」等明確敘述。

8. 越南商標之特殊商品服務之提醒

除了上面提到的一般規則,則對特定商品仍然有一些注意事項要特別注意,像是:

為了決定保障範圍之目的,服務項下包括:貿易、批發零售店、安裝、設計等,務必要將所欲之目的表明清楚。

例如:化妝品的交易;服飾、手提袋或電腦批發零售商店;安裝電腦軟體;服裝設計等。

  • 「功能性食品」之分類為05,而不是29類或30類。
  • 特定產品的生產/製造服務將不被認為是服務,必須轉移到相對應的商品分類。例如:「製造電腦服務」必須被修改為「電腦」商品項目,並轉移到09類。
  • 「植物保護產品」不被認為是特定商品;此必須明確,如「植物保護產品即農藥,將用於破壞有害植物」等等。

結論。為了最大限度地減少瑕疵、風險和不可預期的成本發生,強烈建議於申請越南商標前就要檢查貨物的分類;並對於如果有任何的商品/服務項目應重新分類或顯然不能被接受之越南商標提出建議。

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

 波斯灣國家批准新海灣阿拉伯國家合作委員會商標規則

海灣阿拉伯國家合作委員會(GCC,下稱「海灣合作委員會」) -- 繼海灣合作委員會的官方公報先前公布的新海灣合作委員會商標規則,商業合作委員會已經批准新的海灣阿拉伯國家合作委員會商標規則,並自2015年12月起生效。

新的商標規則將統一海灣合作委員會國家的相關商標申請的所有程序。此外,批准的規則包括修改的官方費用將適用於所有海灣合作委員會國家;不過每個國家還是可以根據自己的法令修改其專業費用。

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Taiwan Trademark 101 Series, the Protection of Well-known Trademarks.

Written by: James Y. Chang

  Attorney-at-Law

1. Preamble

If a trademark didn’t file for registration in Taiwan, it still can be protected by the well-known trademark right from both national laws and international conventions.

 

2. Regulations

Taiwan is a member of WTO. According to the Article 2 of WTO TRIPS agreement, members shall comply with Articles 6[1] of the Paris Convention (1967) which rules that no application shall be filed for registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark that it is likely to cause public confusion.

Even though Taiwan is not a membership of WIPO, she follows the well-known mark agreement[2]of WIPO to protect them from either the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark or the use of that mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark[3]. The Trademark Act[4] of Taiwan recognizes two types of well-known trademark dilution, namely likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks and likelihood of dilution of the reputation of well-known trademarks, which protection is as well as the rules of WIPO.

 

3. Factors to Be Considered When Determining Well-known Trademarks

The determination of well-known trademarks should be made on a case-by-case basis and by taking into consideration. According to the Examination Guidelines for the Protection of Well-known Trademarks[5], the following factors shall be considered as a whole:

(1)   The strength of the distinctiveness of the trademark.

(2) The extent to which the relevant enterprises or consumers know or recognize the trademark.

(3)    The duration, scope, and geographical area of use of the trademark.

(4)   The duration, scope, and geographical area of promotion of the trademark.

(5) Whether the trademark has applied for registration or the trademark has been registered, and its term, scope, and geographic area that are registered or being registered.

(6)   Any record of successful enforcement of trademark rights, especially the fact that the trademark has been recognized as a well-known one by an administrative or judicial authority.

(7)    The value of the trademark.

(8)   Other factors that could be considered in determining whether a trademark is well-known.

The above factors for judging whether a trademark is well-known are only examples. They may not be all necessarily taken into consideration in one case; only those that are relevant enough to determine whether the trademark is well-known should be considered, depending on the circumstances of the case.



[1] Article 6bis: [Marks: Well–Known Marks]

(1) The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well–known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith.

(2) A period of at least five years from the date of registration shall be allowed for requesting the cancellation of such a mark. The countries of the Union may provide for a period within which the prohibition of use must be requested.

(3) No time limit shall be fixed for requesting the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of marks registered or used in bad faith.

[2] Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO September 20 to 29, 1999

[3] Ibid. Article 4 (1)

(b) Irrespective of the goods and/or services for which a mark is used, is the subject of an application for registration, or is registered, that mark shall be deemed to be in conflict with a well-known mark where the mark, or an essential part thereof, constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, a translation, or a transliteration of the well-known mark, and where at least one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

(i) the use of that mark would indicate a connection between the goods and/or services for which the mark is used, is the subject of an application for registration, or is registered, and the owner of the well-known mark, and would be likely to damage his interests;

(ii) the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark;

(iii) the use of that mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark.

[4] Trademark Act Article 30: grounds for refusal of registration

(11) being identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark, unless the proprietor of the said well-known trademark or mark consents to the application;

[5] Examination Guidelines for the Protection of Well-known Trademarks under Subparagraph 11 of Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Trademark Act. Enacted and promulgated on November 9, 2007 by the order of the MOEA. Amended and promulgated on April 20, 2012 by the order of the MOEA, enforced on July 1, 2012.

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Taiwan Trademark 101 Series, the Protection of Well-known Trademarks.

Written by: James Y. Chang

  Attorney-at-Law

1. Preamble

If a trademark didn’t file for registration in Taiwan, it still can be protected by the well-known trademark right from both national laws and international conventions.

 

2. Regulations

Taiwan is a member of WTO. According to the Article 2 of WTO TRIPS agreement, members shall comply with Articles 6[1] of the Paris Convention (1967) which rules that no application shall be filed for registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark that it is likely to cause public confusion.

Even though Taiwan is not a membership of WIPO, she follows the well-known mark agreement[2]of WIPO to protect them from either the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark or the use of that mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark[3]. The Trademark Act[4] of Taiwan recognizes two types of well-known trademark dilution, namely likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks and likelihood of dilution of the reputation of well-known trademarks, which protection is as well as the rules of WIPO.

 

3. Factors to Be Considered When Determining Well-known Trademarks

The determination of well-known trademarks should be made on a case-by-case basis and by taking into consideration. According to the Examination Guidelines for the Protection of Well-known Trademarks[5], the following factors shall be considered as a whole:

(1)   The strength of the distinctiveness of the trademark.

(2) The extent to which the relevant enterprises or consumers know or recognize the trademark.

(3)    The duration, scope, and geographical area of use of the trademark.

(4)   The duration, scope, and geographical area of promotion of the trademark.

(5) Whether the trademark has applied for registration or the trademark has been registered, and its term, scope, and geographic area that are registered or being registered.

(6)   Any record of successful enforcement of trademark rights, especially the fact that the trademark has been recognized as a well-known one by an administrative or judicial authority.

(7)    The value of the trademark.

(8)   Other factors that could be considered in determining whether a trademark is well-known.

The above factors for judging whether a trademark is well-known are only examples. They may not be all necessarily taken into consideration in one case; only those that are relevant enough to determine whether the trademark is well-known should be considered, depending on the circumstances of the case.



[1] Article 6bis: [Marks: Well–Known Marks]

(1) The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well–known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith.

(2) A period of at least five years from the date of registration shall be allowed for requesting the cancellation of such a mark. The countries of the Union may provide for a period within which the prohibition of use must be requested.

(3) No time limit shall be fixed for requesting the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of marks registered or used in bad faith.

[2] Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO September 20 to 29, 1999

[3] Ibid. Article 4 (1)

(b) Irrespective of the goods and/or services for which a mark is used, is the subject of an application for registration, or is registered, that mark shall be deemed to be in conflict with a well-known mark where the mark, or an essential part thereof, constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, a translation, or a transliteration of the well-known mark, and where at least one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

(i) the use of that mark would indicate a connection between the goods and/or services for which the mark is used, is the subject of an application for registration, or is registered, and the owner of the well-known mark, and would be likely to damage his interests;

(ii) the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark;

(iii) the use of that mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the well-known mark.

[4] Trademark Act Article 30: grounds for refusal of registration

(11) being identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark, unless the proprietor of the said well-known trademark or mark consents to the application;

[5] Examination Guidelines for the Protection of Well-known Trademarks under Subparagraph 11 of Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Trademark Act. Enacted and promulgated on November 9, 2007 by the order of the MOEA. Amended and promulgated on April 20, 2012 by the order of the MOEA, enforced on July 1, 2012.

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-1IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-2IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-3IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-4IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-5IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-6IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-7IN 印度商標制度 使用在先 ncv1-8  

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

標題:商品平行輸入是否侵害商標權或著作權之實務見解  /實習律師王晨忠

一、問題源起:

()著作權法第八十七條第一項第四款規定,「有下列情形之一者,除本法另有規定外,視為侵害著作權或製版權:四、未經著作財產權人同意而輸入著作原件或其國外合法重製物者。又同法第八十七條之一第一項第五款規定,「有下列情形之一者,前條第四款之規定,不適用之:五、附含於貨物、機器或設備之著作原件或其重製物,隨同貨物、機器或設備之合法輸入而輸入者,該著作原件或其重製物於使用或操作貨物、機器或設備時不得重製。」商品平行輸入時,著作權人得主張之權利,實務所採之判斷標準為何?

()商標法第六十八條第一款規定,未經商標權人同意,為行銷目的而有下列情形之一,為侵害商標權:一、於同一商品或服務,使用相同於註冊商標之商標者。」又同法第三十六條第二項本文規定,「附有註冊商標之商品,由商標權人或經其同意之人於國內外市場上交易流通,商標權人不得就該商品主張商標權。」商品平行輸入時,商標權人得主張之權利,實務所採之判斷標準為何?

二、問題分析:

()商品平行輸入是否侵害著作權人之輸入權部分:智慧財產局於921118日發布之電子郵件921118函釋[1]認為,著作權法上輸入權所保護之客體為著作權商品,而非含有該著作之其他商品。近期之最高法院[2]亦採相同見解認為,著作權法第八十七條之一第一項第五款規定免責事由之目的在於兼顧保護著作財產權人及減少對文教利用之影響,以達保障著作權人著作權益,調和公共利益。並以商品銷售人係銷售含有系爭著作之其他用途商品、非銷售系爭著作之繪本或貼紙,因符合輸入權之免責事由而未侵害著作權人之輸入權。

()商品平行輸入是否侵害商標權部分:我國早期最高法院[3]見解認為,真正商品之平行輸入,並無引起消費者誤認之虞,對我國商標使用權人之信譽及消費者之利益均無損害,因而促進價格之競爭,使消費者購買同一商品有選擇之餘地,於商標法之目的並不違背,在此範圍內應認為不構成侵害商標使用權。近期智慧財產法院[4]仍維持相同見解,但其所採之理由係以國際耗盡原則,是商標權人對於經其同意流通於市場之商品,不論第一次投入市場在國內或國外,均不能再主張權利,亦不能禁止真品平行輸入。

三、小結:

()商品自海外平行輸入本國販售,限於附含於其他物品的前提下,始無侵害著作權人之輸入權。若輸入之商品即為著作權商品,此時可能成立侵害著作權人輸入權之損害賠償責任。

()商品自海外平行輸入本國販售,限於真品的前提下,始無侵害商標權。若輸入之商品為仿冒品,則輸入之人可能成立侵害商標權之損害賠償責任。

 

__________________________________________________

[1]:智慧財產局電子郵件921118函釋說明二。著作權法第八十七條第四款固然規定輸入權,未經著作財產權人之同意,而輸入著作原件或重製物者,視為侵害著作權。惟本局認為,該等規定主要係適用於所謂「著作權商品」(例如音樂CD、視聽DVD、書籍、電腦程式等)之輸入行為。如輸入之商品雖含有著作(例如來函床單、被套可能含有之美術或圖形著作),但此著作並非該商品之主要用途、價值之所在者(例如床單、被套之主要用途為供作臥室寢具、其價值之所在應為布料材質),則此等商品並非「著作權商品」,似不受上述著作權法第八十七條第四款規定之限制。

[2]:最高法院102年度台上字第2437號民事判決

[3]:最高法院81年台上字第2444號民事判決

[4]:智慧財產法院103年度民商上字第17號民事判決

 

 

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

MD 摩爾多瓦 登記在先 ncv1-1MD 摩爾多瓦 登記在先 ncv1-2MD 摩爾多瓦 登記在先 ncv1-3MD 摩爾多瓦 登記在先 ncv1-4MD 摩爾多瓦 登記在先 ncv1-5MD 摩爾多瓦 登記在先 ncv1-6  

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

VE 委內瑞拉 登記在先 ncv1-1VE 委內瑞拉 登記在先 ncv1-2VE 委內瑞拉 登記在先 ncv1-3VE 委內瑞拉 登記在先 ncv1-4VE 委內瑞拉 登記在先 ncv1-5VE 委內瑞拉 登記在先 ncv1-6  

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-1PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-2PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-3PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-4PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-5PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-6PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-7PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-8PH 菲律賓 登記在先 ncv1-9  

文章標籤

ZoomlawTrademark 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()