2011 Min Gong Shang Zi No. 1
Decision No. | 2011 Min Gong Shang Zi No. 1 |
---|---|
Date | November 24, 2011 |
Decision Highlight |
1.The part which appellee asserted that appellant’s nutrition blender in dispute plagiarized the appearance design of appellee’s food processor: (1) “Nearly identical appearance of products” and “highly plagiarize product design” are different ideas. Appellee should still provide other evidence to prove that appellant indeed highly plagiarized the design of appellee’s food processor, therefore improperly took advantage of the achievement based on appellee’s efforts, and was not complied with business competition ethics. Only then may appellant’s actions qualify as an obviously unfair conduct that is able to affect trading order. One cannot say that appellant is engaged in an obviously unfair conduct that is able to affect trading order only because the design of the container and the base of their products are extremely similar. (2) When determining whether the appearance of goods cause substantial plagiarism and consumers’ confusion about the origins of goods, the court should consider the difference of goods as a whole and not be limited to the appearance, shape, color, and other parts of the goods. Neither should they view the goods separately by merely comparing part of the trademark or the Chinese and English descriptive text. (3) The brand names labeled on the appellee’s food processor and the appellant’s nutrition blender in dispute are different. In addition, the parties each use their own brand name fonts, trademark icons, and descriptive text. Consumers can tell the difference between them with ordinary care. Therefore, it is unable to claim that consumers are likely to be confused. 2.The part which the appellee claims that the appellant engaged in positive conduct to be a free rider by clinging to their goodwill intentionally: From the way the appellant struggled to establish their own brand, their marketing advertisement put emphasis mainly on the structure and performance of the nutrition blender in dispute rather than the appearance design that is similar to the appellee’s food processor. After reviewing the appellant’s behavior, the court considers that the appellant has clearly revealed important transaction information for consumers to decide whether they want to purchase the nutrition blender in dispute or not. As previously noted, the appearance design of the appellee’s food processor did not have any conspicuous part or specialty. Consumers can differentiate the commodities of the two parties from the brand, informative text, and performance. Therefore, the appellant did not cling to appellee’s goodwill to gain publicity for himself and lead appellee to be trapped in a comparatively unfair competitive position, which is able to affect the trading order. The appellee did not prove that the appellant highly plagiarized the appearance design and advertisement of the appellee’s blender. Therefore, one cannot say that the manner the appellant had conducted, including the design and advertisement of disputed nutrition blender, has caused the number of appellee’s consumer to decline or to lose transaction opportunity. In addition, one is unable to claim that appellant attempted to make consumers mistake that the disputed nutrition blender has the same quality and effect as the appellee’s food processor, which leads to an increase in the sales volume of the disputed blender. |
Keywords |
Highly Plagiarize Appearance Design, Confusion, Obviously Unfair, Free-riding |
Relevant statutes | Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act (amended and promulgated on February 4, 1991 ) |
Related Links
- Release Date:2020-11-13
- Update:2020-12-07