Violation of the Fair Trade Law by Shang Da Ltd., Co. for using the title "Private Post Office"
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Violation of the Fair Trade Law by Shang Da Ltd., Co. for using the title "Private Post Office"
Key Words:
private post office
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of December 17, 1993 (the 110th Commission Meeting); Disposition (82) Kung Ch'u Tzu Nos. 090 and 091.
Industry:
Postal Services (6310)
Relevant Laws:
Summary:
1. Article 21(3) of the Fair Trade Law, applying Article 21(1) mutatis mutandis, provides that an enterprise shall not make any false or misleading representation regarding its services. "Post office" is a term that refers to state-run postal services. Also, the long-standing general impression of a post office's major business has been the delivery of letters. The registered scope of business of the sanctioned party and its franchisees was limited to "the reception, arrangement, and assortment of business documents, and the assortment and delivery of products"; the delivery of letters, postcards or any other correspondence was not included. The sanctioned party violated Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law that prohibits misleading advertisements when it used the term "post office" on their store signs and the headline of their advertisements, which might mislead the general public to believe that the sanctioned party provided the services of letter delivery.
2. According to the Rules and Glossary for the Establishment of the Management Bureau of Postal Zones under Directorate General of Postal Services, MOTC, the term "post office" refers to a government agency established pursuant to the Post Office Organic Law enacted by the congress. Under Articles 2 and 4 the Fair Trade Law, a post office is an "enterprise" and is entitled to equal protection for its name as for those of companies and firms. In respect of whether the term "post office" has become an unprotected generic name, it depends on whether the enterprise that has the exclusive right has failed to object to the use of the name by other enterprises over a long period of time. In this case, however, the state-owned post office objected immediately when they found out that the sanctioned party and its franchisees were using its name. Therefore, there is no way to conclude that the term "post office" had become a generic name denoting the delivery service of goods. The sanctioned party as a result could not defend that it was using the term "post office" as a generic term.
3. Furthermore, a reference to other enterprises' names, products, services, or business logos with the intent to take advantage of their reputation is prohibited by Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law that governs obviously unfair acts with adverse effect on the order of trade. The investigation showed that the sanctioned party, instead of using its company name "Shang Da Ltd., Co." for the promotion and distinction of business, along with its franchisees used the term "private post offices" on the store signs, newspaper advertisements, fliers, employee's uniform, and business vehicles. Through the above mass media, the sanctioned party drew an analogy between the nature and efficiency of its services with those provided by post offices. Though from time to time the sanctioned party and its franchisees did make a note of "Shang Da Ltd., Co." or "private" post offices on the said items and used this fact to defend themselves as harboring no intentions to confuse the general public. However, what the sanctioned party did was meant to take advantage of the established reputation of post offices so as to promote its own business and have more trading opportunities. Therefore, the sanctioned party's act of name association was an obviously unfair act which affected the order of trade, constituting a violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.
4. In conclusion, the sanctioned party violated Article 21(3) (applying Article 21(1) mutatis mutandis) and Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law for using the term "post office". It is sanctioned pursuant to the first half of Article 41 of the same Law.
Summarized by Wang, Jung-ching
Summarized by Kuo, Shu-chen
Appendix:
Shang Da Ltd., Co.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 86904391
＊＊: For information of translation, click here
[Browse by APEC Member
Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]