Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation violated Articles 20, 21, and 24 of the Fair Trade Law for imitating the trademark of Fubon Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
Chinese Taipei
Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation violated Articles 20, 21, and 24 of the Fair Trade Law for imitating the trademark of Fubon Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
Key Words:
trademark, Citi-Fubon, Fubon Life Insurance
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of March 6, 2003 (the 591st Commissioners' Meeting); Letter Kung Tsan Tzu No. 0920002023
Industry:
Wholesale of Clothing (4432)
Relevant Law:
Summary:
1. This case originated from a complaint filed by Fubon Life Insurance Co., Ltd., a Fubon Group member famous chiefly for its life insurance operations. In 1999, no other life insurance companies could rival it in market share. In May 2000, Fubon Group signed a strategic alliance agreement with Citigroup, according to which the two large life insurance companies, Fubon and Citilife, would join forces in entering into markets such as the southeast Asian market and China. The combination was extensively covered in the media, and thereafter the term “Citi-Fubon” (Fu Pang-Hua Chi) was generally recognized by the general public as a symbol (trademark) used by the complainant in the global market. By using the specific portion “Fu Pang-Hua Chi” in the company name Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation, the respondent intended the name to indicate the combination between the complainant and the Citigroup. In addition, “Fubon” and “Citi-” were commonly recognized as abbreviations for company names by relevant enterprises and consumers. At the point in time when the Fubon Group and Citigroup formed a strategic alliance to move into the global market, the respondent's use of the term “international” in its name was not only insufficient as a “distinguishing term,” but objectivity also very likely to cause public confusion about the respondent and the complainant being the same company or affiliates. Knowing that the complainant had already established a strategic alliance with Citigroup and was the transferee of the assets and business of Citicorp Life Insurance Limited, Taiwan Branch, the respondent's responsible person and some employees, during their service in the company, filed an application for registration of company under the name “Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation,” a name identical to the substantive name of the complainant after the transnational combination was approved. It was clear that the respondent intended to take a free ride on the business reputation of another.
2. Indicating the source of its goods and services and enabling identification of them by relevant enterprises or consumers, “Fubon” was the specific portion of the complainant's name, and hence a symbol, or trademark, under Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law. The complainant stated that on 7 November 2000 it filed an application with the Fair Trade Commission for approval of combination of enterprises as the transferee of the assets and business of Citicorp Life Insurance Limited, Taiwan Branch, which was approved. However, “Citi-Fubon” (Fu Pang-Hua Chi) was not used as a company name, service mark, or other symbol (trademark) of business or service after the combination. The only evidence the complainant provided was the large-scale advertisements placed jointly by it and Citicorp Life Insurance Limited in major media for three days running from 27 November 2000, which was insufficient to determine that “Citi-Fubon” had already become “a business or service symbol (trademark) commonly known among relevant enterprises or consumers.”
3. The respondent stated that its preparation for establishment began with the approval of the Ministry of Economic Affairs on 15 November 2001. It joined Summit International Lily Co., Ltd. (Summit International), a multi-level sales enterprise, in December that year, and began its “Health Enterprise” clothing wholesaling operation in January of 2002. Its business volume for that month was NT$301,000. Its profits up to 18 February 2002 added up to NT$52,280. Summit International provided photocopies of Postal Giro Savings Deposit Notices to prove that its business was irrelevant to the complainant's life insurance services and that its use of the company name did not go beyond the scope of “ordinary use.” Therefore, it was unlikely that relevant enterprises or consumers would associate the respondent's goods or services with the complainant. The respondent's use of the name did not constitute use in the same or a similar manner so as to cause confusion with the facilities or activities connected with the operations or services of another person, and thus did not violate Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law.
4. Although “Fubon” was commonly known among relevant enterprises or consumers, the impression that “Fubon Life Insurance” generally gave was as a symbol (trademark) or company name representing the life insurance business. The respondent's company name “Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation” was different from that of the complainant. Besides, Fu Pang-Hua Chi (Citi-Fubon) was not the complainant's well-known symbol (trademark), and the respondent's business never extended to life insurance-related services, either. There was no other concrete evidence to prove that the respondent adversely affected effective competition in the market by aggressively passing off the complainant's commercial reputation and exploiting the fruits of the complainant's efforts. Therefore, the current evidence was insufficient to prove the violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law by the respondent.
5. The respondent duly registered its company name pursuant to the Company Act, and was thus entitled to the use of the name “Fu Pang-Hua Chi International Corporation.” As a symbol or a trademark, the name was neither false nor misleading. Therefore, the current evidence was insufficient to prove the violation of Article 21(3) of the Fair Trade Law by the respondent.
6. In conclusion, there was no concrete supporting evidence proving that the respondent had violated Articles 20, 21, or 24 of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Chen, Jen-Ying; Supervised by Yeh, Ning