No disposition was made in the case of Chia Hui Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. was complained for copying the appearance of another company's product

Case:

No disposition was made in the case of Chia Hui Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. was complained for copying the appearance of another company's product

Key Words:

appearance of products, plagiarize

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of April 22, 2004 (the 650th Commissioners' Meeting); Letter Kung San No. 0930003227

Industry:

Wholesale of Other Household Applicance and Supplies (4449)

Relevant Laws:

Article 21(1) and 24 of the Fair Trade Law

1. This case originated with a complaint filed by the Amorous Co., Ltd. (Japan) (hereinafter called "Japan Amorous"), stating that the Chia Hui Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter called "Chia Hui") had copied the appearance of Japan Amorous's "Hei Tsai" hair color product series, which may induce general or relevant consumers to erroneously assume that Chia Hui was the manufacturer or the manufactured place of Chia Hui's products was Japan. This behavior constituted theft of the Japan Amorous's hard work and violated the principles of commercial ethics and effective competition; Chia Hui's above-mentioned behavior was suspected in violation of Articles 21 and 24 of the Fair Trade Law (FTL).
2. Findings of the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) after investigation:
   The predecessor of the Japan Amorous signed commissioned manufacturing and sales contracts with Chia Hui's business group in 1973 and 1975 respectively. Both parties explained and communicated product quality, containers, and packaging in letters. One company in Chia Hui's business group (Ta Kang Co.) had possessed exclusive use rights for the "Amorous" and related trademarks since 1974. In addition, since the cosmetics department of the predecessor of the Japan Amorous transferred all rights and duties to Chia Hui in 1977, Chia Hui possesses exclusive rights to use of the "Hei Tsai" trademark; the two parties do not dispute these facts. It was found after further investigation that Japan Amorous used the "Hei Tsai" trademark and appearance on their products in Japan as early as 1972 and exported them to Taiwan as well as other countries. However, the Japan Amorous could not provide relevant evidence to proof of their continuous sale of these products in Taiwan since 1972, or the advertising and publicity used to promote sales of said products. For its part, Chia Hui sold their products in Taiwan as early as 1973, and likewise exported those products to Singapore and Malaysia, etc. Moreover, thesep roducts had been manufactured and sold in Taiwan for over thirty years, and announcement meetings, sponsorship activities, and advertising information can be provided as evidence. Accordingly, the statements and evidence provided by the two parties in this case gave no grounds for judging that Chia Hui had violated Article 20 of the FTL.
3. Further investigation uncovered that Japan Amorous had not provided any concrete evidence concerning its company name and whether it was widely recognized as "Amorous" and related trademarks by consumers in Taiwan. Accordingly, the claim by Japan Amorous that Chia Hui's use of the markings "Amorous" on its product packaging and containers would cause general or relevant public to assume that the Japan Amorous had manufactured the products is groundless. Further investigation showed that Chia Hui places markings indicating that the manufacturer is Chia Hui and the manufactured place is Taiwan on the packaging and containers of its products. There was therefore nothing to cause consumers to assume that the product manufacturer was the Japan Amorous or the manufactured place was Japan. Representations and symbols on the products invariably correspond to the facts.
4. As for the Japan Amorous claim that Chia Hui had copied the appearance of its products and had severely plagiarized said products, apart from advertisements for the related products issued in 2000 by Japan Amorous's import agent, the Japan Amorous could not provide relevant evidence of the continuous sale of these products in Taiwan since 1972, or the advertising and publicity used to promote sales of said products. Moreover, according to Chia Hui's testimony and relevant evidence, Chia Hui had been manufacturing and selling these products in Taiwan for over thirty years, and had provided announcement meetings, sponsorship activities, and advertising information as evidence. There were thus no grounds for judging that Chia Hui had violated of the Article 24 of the FTL.

Appendix:
Chia Hui Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.'s Uniform Invoice Number: 15865328