South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesk

Case Studies

Caso di studio 14 - Pratiche relative ai marchi in Tailandia

Contesto
Una ditta di abbigliamento spagnola ha avviato alcuni negozi di abbigliamento di marca in Indonesia, pianificando di aprire una nuova filiale nel sud della Tailandia. Il titolare della ditta era a conoscenza del valore del marchio e lo aveva già registrato in Indonesia in relazione ai propri prodotti nella Classe 25 internazionale per le categorie "abbigliamento", "copricapo" e "calzature".

Data la precedente esperienza di registrazione del proprio marchio in Indonesia, il titolare sapeva che il processo di registrazione può durare fino a due anni. Pertanto, già mentre pensava di aprire una nuova filiale in Tailandia, aveva depositato una domanda di marchio in questo paese. La designazione dei prodotti per questa nuova domanda era la stessa di quella dei prodotti già registrati in Indonesia (ossia, "abbigliamento", "copricapo" e "calzature"). Tuttavia, la domanda di marchio in Tailandia è stata respinta dall'organismo addetto alla registrazione con la motivazione che la descrizione delle merci era troppo ampia secondo la prassi tailandese di registrazione del marchio.

Caso di studio 13 - Uso abusivo del marchio in Indonesia

Contesto
Un'importante ditta di abbigliamento italiana è impegnata nella vendita al dettaglio di vestiario e abbigliamento. Le operazioni della ditta italiana sono di ampia portata e la stessa vanta numerosi punti vendita in tutto il territorio ASEAN. La ditta italiana possiede numerosi marchi registrati a tutela dei propri marchi, tra cui il marchio 'AAA' registrato in molti paesi a livello internazionale. L'Indonesia è tra questi paesi, qui il marchio è registrato nella categoria delle merci e servizi per le Classi 18, 25 e 35.

La registrazione del marchio in Indonesia per la Classe 25 è avvenuta nel 2008. Data la correttezza della registrazione, la ditta italiana era certa che non sarebbe stato possibile registrare marchi identici o ingannevolmente simili nelle stesse categorie di merci e/o servizi.

Case Study 12 – Unjust Appropriation of Famous Trade Mark by Local Firm in the Philippines

Background

A famous French culinary school tried to register its 1895 trade mark LE CORDON BLEU in the Philippines but it was opposed by a local entity which was owned by one of the graduates of the same school. The graduate started using the same mark in the Philippines long before the French school tried to register but never applied for trade mark registration. The local entity argued that it was the first to use the mark in the Philippines, thus it should be entitled to register the mark ahead of the French school. Subsequent to filing the opposition, the local entity filed its own trade mark application covering the same mark.

Case Study 11 – Thailand: Suing Trade Mark Board for Unlawful Decision

Background

A manufacturer of various safety products including disposable respirators (i.e., masks for protecting against dust and pollutants), traffic cones and reflective tapes, applied for registration of the trade mark VFLEX in respect of disposable respirators in Class 9 with the Thai Trademark Office. The trade mark Registrar rejected the application, saying that the mark was descriptive of the goods it was intended to cover because the letter V was a letter not shown in a stylised form and the word FLEX meant ‘bendable or flexible’ which, when used in respect of a disposable respirator, directly described the product (the Registrar explained further that a disposable respirator must be adjusted and bent along the contour of a human face.)

Case Study 10 – The Importance of Registering your Trade Mark in the Philippines

Background In 1994, the German company Birkenstock Orthopaedie Gmbh & Co., filed several trade mark applications for its mark ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ and its variants in the Philippines. To its surprise, Birkenstock learned that its ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ trade mark was already registered to a Philippine company called Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation (Shoe Expo). Birkenstock quickly filed actions for cancellation against the registered mark. While the cancellation case was pending, Shoe Expo failed to file the required 10th year Declaration of Actual Use (DAU). Failure to file the DAU results in the trade mark registrations being deemed withdrawn. Because of this, the cancellation action filed by Birkenstock was dismissed for being moot and academic, paving the way for its own trade mark applications to be allowed. Shoe Expo, not deterred by the cancellation of its registration, filed oppositions to the trade mark applications of Birkenstock, on the grounds that it had been using the mark ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ for over 16 years in the Philippines and that it had re-applied for said trade marks, and had also obtained copyright registration for the word ‘BIRKENSTOCK’ in 1991.

Case Study 09 – Similarity of Goods & Services: Trade Mark Registration in Vietnam

Background A well-known German company, a producer and distributor of eyewear, sunglasses and protective helmets, applied for trade mark protection under the Madrid system for its brand ‘X’ in 2010. The registration was applied for ‘goods & services’ in international trade mark classes 6-20, 35-37, and 39-41 (these categories indicate the type of product and must be used when filing for trade mark registrations internationally). Following the application, the brand ‘X’ was successfully registered in many countries worldwide. One of the designated countries was Vietnam.

Case Study 08 – Trade Mark Opposition Appeal in Singapore

Background Company A is a media company in Singapore with commercial interests in television, radio broadcasting and print publishing. The company operates an English news channel and is the registered proprietor of the ‘HHH’ Mark in Class 35 (Advertising; Business Management; Business Administration and Office Functions) of the Nice Trade Mark Classification System. Company B is a media and entertainment company which provides direct-to-home satellite television services in Malaysia and Brunei, amongst others. Company B applied to register a mark, the ‘BBB’ mark, which was allegedly similar in design to that of Company A, who then relied on sections 8(2) (b) and 8(3) of the Trade Marks Act to oppose Company B’s application. However, the Trade Marks Registrar concluded that there was a low likelihood of confusion between the marks. Company A then appealed to the High Court against the Registrar’s decision.

Case Study 06 - On-going Partner and Employee Due Diligence (Singapore)

Background                                           

A European craft beer company wishes to open a bar in Singapore.

 

Action taken

The European company decides that it will simply license the Singaporean partner to use its trade marks and sign up to a written one-year exclusive distribution deal. It allows the partner to register a local company which incorporates its business name and trade marks, to register its trade marks in Singapore, and to register a local domain name.