A complaint was filed against Pei En Enterprise Co., stating that the company mailed out a letter warning against trademark infringement in violation of the Fair Trade Law
Chinese Taipei
Case:
A complaint was filed against Pei En Enterprise Co., stating that the company mailed out a letter warning against trademark infringement in violation of the Fair Trade Law
Key Words:
trademark rights; parallel importation of original products; warning letter
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of February 10, 1999 (the 380th Commission Meeting); Disposition (88) Kung Chu Tzu No. 025
Industry:
Cleaning Products (2231)
Relevant Laws:
Summary:
1. Pei En Enterprise sent a letter to the Taichung Chengteh branch of Chia Fu Corp., claiming that Chia Fu Corp. was selling products that bear the Bubchen trademark and the label “ Importer: Hui Ch'un Co.” These included shower gel and skin care cream products. The letter claimed that such act infringed Pei En Enterprise's right to the exclusive use of the trademark. As a result, the said products were all removed from their display counters. Hui Ch'un Co. thus filed a complaint with the Fair Trade Commission (the Commission).
2. According to investigations conducted by the Commission, Hui Ch'un Co. was a parallel importer of genuine products. Pei En Enterprise neither inquired with the original manufacturer, filed charges of trademark infringement with the judicial authorities, nor sent the products to a fair and objective agency to verify whether the Bubchen shower gel and skin care cream products sold by Chia Fu were counterfeits. Pei En Enterprise also did not inform Hui Ch'un Co. prior to sending the letter.
In addition, regardless of whether Pei En Enterprise mailed the warning letter to clearly state the contents and scope of the company's rights or to state the facts of the infringement, the letter exaggerated and expanded the coverage of the company's trademark rights, apart from falsely implying that Hui Ch'un Co. violated its trademark rights. As a result, the competition was prevented from engaging in fair competition. The act obviously deprived competitors of opportunities for fair trade, constituted fraud, and was patently unfair.
3. In this case, the mailing of warning letter was not a proper way to exercise trademark rights, and was obviously inconsistent with business competition ethics. Thus, at the 380th Commission Meeting, it was decided that the said act violated Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law and Pei En Enterprise was thus punished pursuant to the first part of Article 41 of the Law.
Appendix:
Pei En Enterprise Co.’s Uniform Invoice Number: 23607081
Summarized by Wang, Hung-hsuan
Supervised by Li, Yen-hsi