Le Yang Enterprise Co., Ltd. violated the Fair Trade Law for sending letters of notice and issuing public notices
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Le Yang Enterprise Co., Ltd. violated the Fair Trade Law for sending letters of notice and issuing public notices
Key words:
automobile parts, letter of notice, public notice
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of 31 December 1997 (the 322nd Commission Meeting); Disposition (87) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 010
Industry:
International Trade (4040)
Relevant Laws:
Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that in October of 1996 the respondent sent a letter of notice to many dealers of automobile parts including Kuo Ch'an. In its letter of notice, the respondent accused the complainant of having infringed upon its registered trademark and that it was collecting relevant evidence for filing a lawsuit. The respondent further stated that any person found to be involved in the alleged trademark infringement would be subject to penalty under the law. The respondent then published a public notice alleging the same in a number of automobile magazines in November of the same year. The respondent's act of falsely accusing the complainant of infringement prior to instituting action before a court and its act of distributing notices of untrue content were alleged to be in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.
The Fair Trade Commission’s investigation found that in both the letters of notice and the public notices, the respondent failed to specify its own trademark, the trademark used by the complainant, content or scope of its trademark right, and substantial facts regarding the infringement. The respondent's purpose in circulating the letters of notice and publishing the public notices was to intimidate the automobile parts dealers into terminating their business with the complainant. The respondent's accusation, which was made before the filing of a lawsuit, impressed the recipients of its letters of notice as a warning of possible litigious entanglement. In order to prevent that from happening, the recipients would try to minimize the risk of doing business with the complainant, either by requesting the complainant to sign a guarantee or by asking to return products. The respondent's acts were obviously unfair and impaired the fair competition in the market, thus in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Pai, Yu Chuang