Complaint filed by Guinness Publishing Co. against Guins Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "Guins") alleging that Guins may violate the Fair Trade Law by using the "GUINNESS" name

Chinese Taipei

Case:

Complaint filed by Guinness Publishing Co. against Guins Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "Guins") alleging that Guins may violate the Fair Trade Law by using the "GUINNESS" name

Key Words:

free-riding, riding on another person's coattail, deceptive or obviously unfair acts, trading order

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of April 9, 1997 (the 284th Commission Meeting); Disposition of (86) Kung Chu Tsu 049

Industry:

International trading industry (4040)

Relevant Law:

Articles 20 and 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law sets forth that "in addition to what has been provided for in this Law, an enterprise shall not conduct other deceptive or obviously unfair acts that are sufficient to affect the trading order." The purpose of these provisions is to prevent any transactions between enterprises and their trading counterparts from becoming acts that are sufficiently deceptive or obviously unfair to affect the trading order. Whether an act is deceptive or obviously unfair should be judged by looking at whether the act has damaged the efficiency of market competition. That is, if an enterprise acts against the principle of efficiency competition (such as by actively riding on the coattails of another person's reputation or reaping the achievements of another person's efforts), it is obviously unfair to the person whose reputation or efforts are being taken advantage of, as well as other competitors who have respected the nature of fair competition. According to Point 16 of the Principles for Handling Cases Regarding Article 20 and Article 24 under the Fair Trade Law, if the constituent elements of a person's use of a famous symbol which signifies another person's goods or services do not correspond with the constituent elements of a violation specified in Article 20 of the Fair Trade Law, the act at issue may be handled as a violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.

According to the investigation, the Guinness Book of World Records that the Complainant, Guinness Publishing Co., published in past years contain numerous world records. World records that were certified and published by the company enjoy high credibility and a good reputation around the world, and the Guinness Book of World Records that the company published is also commonly known to the people in our country. In addition, by the end of September 1996, there have been 509,935 visits to the Guinness World Records Museum established in January 1996 in Taichung. The Museum's characteristics and activities were often reported in newspapers and periodicals. Part of the company's name and its trademark, "GUINNESS," also appeared in the company's advertising literature and in newspaper reports frequently enough to establish that "GUINNESS" is a symbol commonly known to the relevant public in our country. Moreover, Guinness Publishing Co. is one of Guinness PLC's subsidiaries. The Group's subsidiaries operate various types of businesses. The joint effort of all the subsidiaries has made "GUINNESS" famous in Chinese Taipei area and in many other places around the world. However, "GUINNESS" is not a common word. When a consumer sees goods bearing the word, "GUINNESS," he may associate those goods with Guinness PLC or think that the goods were manufactured under a license or sponsorship granted by Guinness PLC.

2. The respondents, Guins used the words "GUINNESS" and "International" as parts of its company's English name, and used the "GUINNESS" trademark on the ozonizers sold by it. Guins's acts easily led consumers to mistake Guins for one of Guinness PLC's subsidiaries or to believe that there was a license or sponsorship between Guins and Guinness PLC. Therefore, Guins's intent to ride the coattails of the reputation built by the Complainant after much effort, in order to increase its own business can be sufficiently established. The registration of its approved trademark, "GUINNESS," has also been revoked by the National Bureau of Standards of the Ministry of Economic Affairs on the ground that the trademark is likely to misled the public. Therefore, whether we look to the principle of efficiency competition or the business ethics, Guins's act should constitute an obviously unfair act that is sufficient to affect the trading order under Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.

　

Summarized by Lin, C. M.
Supervised by Wu, T. H.

Appendix:
Guins’s Uniform Invoice No.: 86840051

＄: For information of translation, click here

[Browse by APEC Member Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]