Showing posts with label passing off. Show all posts
Showing posts with label passing off. Show all posts

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Giorgio Armani Not Amused By Giormani of Hong Kong

IP Dragon was strolling in Sha Tin (沙田), minding his own business, until he came across a Giormani shop. Was Giorgio Armani saving costs by using less lettering on the billboards?

Italian designer Giorgio Armani, who built the vast Emporio Armani (empire Armani) of clothing and luxury products, will probably not be amused that Kelvin Ng and Jane Tong founded Giormani, a Hong Kong sofa furniture design and manufacturing company in 1999. It's website tells you that they work with young designers from Italy, Germany and Hong Kong. Therefore, we can exclude the possibility of Giorgio Armani designing for them, since he is only young at heart.

If Giorgio Armani registered its trademark in Hong Kong he could probably do something about the sofa business. And even when he did not register his trademark, since Hong Kong has a Common Law system, it means that he can enforce his unregistered trademarks with the legal figure of the tort of passing off.

However the plaintiff should proof the classic trinity:
The goods or services have acquired goodwill or reputation in the marketplace that distinguishes such goods or services from competitors;
The defendant misrepresents his goods or services, either intentionally or unintentionally, so that the public may have the impression that the offered goods or services are those of the claimant;
and The claimant may suffer damages because of the misrepresentation.

The Trademark Ordinance of Hong Kong states in the introduction: "No proceedings lie to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark butnothing in this Ordinance affects the law relating to passing off."
continue reading ...

Friday, December 04, 2009

Starbucks Is Coming From Venus, Copycats from St. Mars

Jamon Yerger is founder of Southern Perspective Shenzhen ("China Law Reference, doing it right the first time"), a consulting company in the bustling city of Shenzhen that provides advice on a range of business functions; the majority of which deal with manufacturing in China and legal protection for foreign companies engaged in supply chain activities. Mr Yerger wanted to go to a Starbucks. And he did not mean Starbucks in the generic sense, as some people already use it for any place where you can buy a daily doses of caffeine. Although "colors, script, umbrellas and even the glass awning over the doors" were similar to his old Starbucks, he found out, to his surprise, it was not coffee shop of this also in China pretty well known brand (I am not referring to the legal term well known mark. This would be the case if it is well known in China, and acknowledged as such by China). They only used a different name: St. Mars. So the place had the look and feel of Starbucks. IP Dragon agrees with Mr Yerger's opinion that St. Mars is "clearly hitchhiking" on the Starbucks brand. So what could it mean in legalese?

The question is whether Starbucks registered the name Starbucks Coffee in China. If you are at the trademark search site, sponsored by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (first select "Search of identical or similar TMs", then fill in class 30 for non-alcoholic beverages), here, you will find that Starbucks has several trademarks. You could then argue that Starbucks Coffee and St Mars Coffee, using the identical font, and the identical colour, is confusingly similar and infringes Starbucks trademark. Maybe Starbucks separately trademarked the colour, which would lead to trademark infringement. The design of parts of the place could be patented in China. And if the copycat cannot be stopped by trademark law or design patents, copyright law might be a place of last resort. China is coming up with a Tort Law (December 5th, was the deadline for submission of comments), see here, and maybe the legal figure of passing off will be introduced, which I doubt, since it is more of a Common Law legal figure. Anyways read Mr Yerger's article, see the pictures of the two places and decide for yourself here.

Read also Starbucks versus Xingbake here.
continue reading ...