Showing posts with label trademark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trademark. Show all posts

Monday, October 20, 2025

Ryan Whalen et al on Measuring the Value of Trademark Distinctiveness: Evidence From the Market for Bordeaux Wine (JELS)

"Measuring the Value of Trademark Distinctiveness: Evidence From the Market for Bordeaux Wine"
Christopher Buccafusco, Jonathan S. Masur, Ryan Whalen
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Published online: September 2025

Abstract: The market value of distinctive trademarks is a fundamental assumption of both trademark law and marketing theory. However, there is little empirical evidence underlying this assumption. We examine the relationship between brand dissimilarity and market prices in the context of the Bordeaux wine market. Using a unique dataset covering thousands of wines and their associated prices and professional ratings, we find that brand distinctiveness is related to higher wine prices. We further show that this relationship persists across the wine quality spectrum, with both lower quality and higher quality wines benefiting from dissimilar marks. Finally, we show that while there is a dissimilarity price premium for lower quality wines, producers who invest in higher quality wines are rewarded with an even greater premium for dissimilar names in absolute dollar terms.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Junsong Feng on Curbing Trademark Bullies through Compensation Liability (HKJLS)

"Curbing Trademark Bullies through Compensation Liability"
Junsong Feng (LLM)
Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies (Volume 18, 2024), pp. 89 - 120

Abstract: In mainland China, trademark bullying and anticounterfeiting campaigns are clearly intertwined and are mainly enforced by professional anti-counterfeiters by filing bulk lawsuits against small businesses at the end of the counterfeiting chain. This strategy distorts the original purpose of anti-counterfeiting efforts. This paper compares this issue to the situation in the United States and analyses the Chinese judiciary’s current response through a quantitative analysis of publicly available court documents. The measures envisaged by the judiciary are to utilise the rules of statutory damages and the legitimate source defense to direct the battle of the anti-counterfeiting campaign to the source of counterfeit. This paper analyses this judicial response and makes suggestions for its improvement.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Call for Papers: Limitations on Trademark Rights from Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (HKU Law & Technology Centre)

Limitations on Trademark Rights from Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Deadline for Abstract Submission: September 14, 2018

The Law and Technology Centre at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law and the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at New York University School of Law will next year co-sponsor a conference on limitations on trademark rights. The conference will bring together scholars from around the world to explore the nature and scope of those limitations from comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives. The conference will be held at the University of Hong Kong on January 7-8, 2019.
      The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) sets no minimum standards for limitations on trademark rights, such as fair use and exhaustion. At the domestic level, the courts in various jurisdictions have adopted conflicting opinions on how to decide cases involving such limitations (e.g., nominative fair use). Comparative studies are therefore useful in understanding the differing legal standards for the limitations on trademark rights adopted in different jurisdictions. Moreover, conventional wisdom largely justifies trademark rights limitations from free speech or market competition perspectives, with other theoretical approaches such as social and cultural studies enjoying limited application in considering the nature and scope of those limitations. Against this backdrop, the conference organizers welcome submissions of papers developing new thoughts and theories on limitations on trademark rights by examining them through a comparative or interdisciplinary lens.
      The Rt. Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob will deliver the conference’s keynote speech, and a number of leading trademark scholars have already agreed to present papers. A limited number of presentation slots have also been reserved for scholars to be selected through this call for papers. Both senior and junior scholars are encouraged to submit abstracts of the papers they intend to present. Abstracts will be selected based on scholarly merit and originality.
      Please submit an abstract (no more than 300 words) to Ms. Grace Chan at mcgrace@hku.hk by September 14, 2018. The submission should also include your name, position, institutional affiliation and e-mail address.
      All applicants will be informed of the selection outcome by October 2, 2018. Financial support is available for scholars who experience difficulty obtaining a sufficient travel grant from their institution.
     All conference enquiries should be addressed to Ms. Grace Chan at the above e-mail address or at (+852) 3917-4727.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Alice Lee's Comparative Study of Well-known Trade Marks and Dissimilar Goods (HKLJ)

"Well-known Trade Marks and Dissimilar Goods: HK, UK and EU Law"
Alice Lee
Hong Kong Law Journal
2017, Vol. 47, Issue 1, pp 89-114
Abstract: The escalating complaints of international brands about unauthorised use of their trade marks or resembling marks on non-competing goods or services have provoked rethinking of trade mark law. In Hong Kong, as in most other jurisdictions, there are specific statutory provisions for the protection of well-known trade marks. Comparing Hong Kong, UK and European authorities, this article examines the scope of ss 18(4) and 12(4) of the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap 559), explains why they should be construed as limited to dissimilar goods and services and concludes that the Trade Marks Registry Work Manual is in desperate need of revision.

Friday, May 12, 2017

New Issue of Hong Kong Law Journal (Part 1 of 2017)

Hong Kong Law Journal

Vol. 47, Part 1 of 2017
Editor-in-Chief: Professor Rick Glofcheski
Associate Editor: Professor Albert Chen



Table of Contents
Analysis
1
17
Lectures
33
55
73
ARTICLES
89
115
143
171
193
221
CHINA LAW
243
265
MEMOIR
291
BOOK REVIEWS
Advanced Introduction to the Law of International Organizations, Jan Klabbers Amy Barrow
311
Title and Title Conflicts in respect of Intermediated Securities under English Law, Dr Wenwen Liang Guangjian Tu
317

Friday, March 10, 2017

Haochen Sun Interviewed on the TRUMP Trademark Registration in China (LA Times)

Jessica Meyers
Los Angeles Times
6 March 2017
It took a few lines on a Chinese website to end one fight over President Trump’s right to his name and begin another.
   China’s government last month granted the “Trump” brand trademark protections in the construction industry, concluding a decadelong battle that, until last summer, the American businessman looked unlikely to ever win.
     The notice finalized a decision in November, before Trump became president. But it ignited condemnation from U.S. ethics lawyers and Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who question whether the president violated the Constitution by accepting special favors from a foreign government.
     An otherwise formulaic approval has escalated into a key example of the challenges — in perception and potential conflicts of interest — when a businessman with ties to a global portfolio also runs the country.
...
     The move followed a December ruling that blocked sportswear company Qiaodan Sports from using the Chinese version of Michael Jordan’s name. And in January, the Supreme People’s Court released guidelines that prohibited trademarks for names of public figures in fields such as politics and culture.
     Decisions like these “may be read as a tendency to give better protection to foreign celebrity interests in China,” said Haochen Sun, director of the Law and Technology Center at the University of Hong Kong and a specialist in intellectual property law.
     The State Administration for Industry and Commerce, which oversees the trademark office, directed questions to the agency. It did not answer calls... Click here to read the full article.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Yahong Li on the French-Chinese Dispute over Feiyue Sneakers (SCMP)

Lucy Christie
South China Morning Post
24 February 2017
When it comes to the sincerest form of flattery – imitation – Chinese companies are often considered to be the champions. From popular luxury handbags and Rolls-Royce cars to smartphones and even KFC fast food, there is little they won’t duplicate. Additionally, Chinese transliterations for famous Western brand names are trademarked in China, putting the original innovators in a bind when they want to sell in China.
     Now, the tables may be turning, with one French business finding inspiration in a Chinese product and giving the design a sophisticated makeover. And not everyone in China is happy with the turn of events.
...
    Dr Li Yahong, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong who specialises in intellectual property law, says that from a legal perspective a trademark is protected territorially, and on a first-to-file basis.
     “As long as the Chinese company has not registered its Feiyue mark in France, the French company can register it in France without getting anyone’s approval, and its registered mark is protected in France,” she says... Click here to read the full article.

Friday, December 9, 2016

HKU Class of 2016 Graduates (Law PhD and SJD)

Congratulations to our 14 PhD and 1 SJD graduates who had their degrees conferred upon them at the 196th Congregation on 1 December 2016 at the University of Hong Kong.  The Congregation also saw the graduation of 461 other Faculty of Law students: 24 LLM, 21 LLM in Human Rights, 83 LLM in Corporate & Financial Law, 38 Master of Common Law, 4 LLM in Chinese Law, 27 LLM in Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law, 37 LLM in Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, 38 JD and 189 LLB. The newest members of our RPg alumnae family include the following:

1. Dr Yue LUO, The Myth of Chinese Well-Known Marks: Formation, Debunking and Judicial Practice.  Supervisors: Alice Lee and Po Jen Yap

2. Dr Che Singh KOCHAR-GEORGE, A Disciplinary Model of the Asylum Process: Case Studies from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.  Supervisors: Simon Young and Kelley Loper


4. Dr A-Jull LIM, Professional Failure and the Degradation of International Humanitarian Law: Narcissist Responses to the Post 9/11 So-called War on Terrorism.  Supervisor: Hualing Fu


6. Dr Huimiao ZHAO, Government Intervention in the Reorganization of Listed Companies in the context of Socialist Market Economy of China.  Supervisors: Xianchu Zhang and Emily Lee



9.  Dr Maria Adele CARRAI, A Genealogy of Sovereignty in Modern China, 1840-Today.  Supervisor: Albert Chen

10.  Dr Annelotte Jorien WALSH, A Children's Right Audit of the International Criminal Court.  Supervisor: Scott Veitch




14.  Dr Wenwen LU, Emergency Powers and Law in China.  Supervisors: Hualing Fu and Tony Carty

15.  Dr Sha LI, Fiction and Human Rights Discourse in China 1897-1927.  Supervisor: Marco Wan.


Sunday, October 2, 2016

Haochen Sun on the Hermes Litigation and Trademark Protection in China (EIPR)

European Intellectual Property Review
2016, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 101-108
Abstract: A series of cases that Hermès litigated in China provide profound lessons for transnational companies to tap into the potential of trade marks in promoting their businesses in China. The first part of this article takes a close look at the trajectory of the Hermès v Dafeng litigation, in which Hermès failed to prove that both the HERMÈS mark and its Chinese transliteration were well-known trade marks in China. By drawing on Hermès v Dafeng and other cases Hermès litigated, the second and third parts provide a nuanced analysis of the key issues for protecting trade marks in the Chinese first-to-file system and for determining the well-known trade mark status of a mark in China. The fourth and fifth parts examine the lessons that can be gleaned from a series of Hermès cases for securing anti-confusion and anti-dilution protection of trade marks in China.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Haochen Sun on the Gucci Burnt Offerings Row in Hong Kong (SCMP)

Haochen Sun
South China Morning Post
12 May 2016
Much to everyone’s surprise, Gucci apologised last Friday to Hong Kong stores selling funeral paper offerings after sending out a warning letter accusing them of infringing its trademark right. It may seem this battle has ended with the poor “ants” (stores) triumphing over a rich “elephant” (Gucci). This sentiment will resonate with many people. But, in fact, neither of these parties is the real loser: rather, it is the general public.
     First, while Gucci rushed to apologise “to anyone [its staff] may have offended”, the ants-versus-elephants sentiment has encouraged law-breaking behaviour. Second, the public attention on the case has nevertheless failed to focus on the underlying social justice problems in Hong Kong and many other parts of the world.
     It is clear from the public response that few people gave serious consideration to whether Gucci’s trademark right was being infringed by sales of the paper offerings. Instead, Gucci was accused either of showing no respect to the Chinese tradition of burning paper offerings to the dead or of waging a war against small business owners on main street.
     Bear in mind that the paper replicas of Gucci handbags bore the intertwined “GG” logo, which Gucci has registered with the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department. Lawyers who were asked by the media to comment on the case argued that the paper offerings did not infringe Gucci’s legal right to prevent consumer confusion under our trademark law. Surely, no reasonable consumer of luxury handbags would be misled into believing the paper replicas were Gucci-made handbags. The venue and price at which they were sold defy any second-guessing that Gucci had ventured into the funeral products market... Click here to read the full article.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

HKU Law Faculty on Whether 'Gucci' Paper Offerings for the Dead Violate Trademark (INYT)

"Rest in Peace ... Just Not in Gucci Loafers"
Michael Forsythe
International New York Times
4 May 2016
On Java Road in Hong Kong, a new pair of brown leather Gucci loafers, lovingly wrapped in cellophane, hangs from a storefront — the deal of a lifetime at less than $3. Just not this lifetime.
    The shoes are paper replicas, meant to be burned as offerings to relatives who have died — a modern twist on an old Chinese custom. At specialty shops across this city, the bereaved can choose from an impressive array of goods to send to their departed loved ones, including Italian sports cars, smartphones, six-packs of beer, cigarettes, dress shirts and sport jackets.
     One store, next to Hong Kong’s Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery, even sells paper replicas of McDonald’s value meals, complete with fries, soda and a package of something called “Chicken MuNeggtc.”
     But the Gucci handbags and shoes that grandmother may have cooed over when she was among the living now appear to be out of her ethereal reach. A shopkeeper quickly snatched the loafers away from one inquiring customer, explaining that they were no longer for sale.
     It seems Gucci’s zeal to protect its brand extends into the hereafter. Last week, its parent company, Paris-based Kering, sent a letter to six local stores that sell the paper offerings, telling them to stop selling replicas of Gucci products because they were using its famous trademark that graces shoes, wallets, hats, jewelry and women’s purses.
     “What we are trying to do is let them know that Gucci is a trademark and we are trying to protect it,” Charlotte Judet, a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman for Kering, said by telephone. “We fully respect the funeral context.”...
     “People in Hong Kong are law-abiding,” Alice Lee, an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong who focuses on intellectual property, said in a telephone interview. “We have had the benefit of British rule for such a long time.”
     But Ms. Lee said Gucci would have a difficult time proving that makers of paper offerings infringed on its trademark. To successfully sue for trademark infringement, she said, a company has to demonstrate that people confuse the cardboard replicas with real Gucci products, which is highly unlikely.
     Her colleague Haochen Sun, a professor who studies trademark protection of luxury brands, said Gucci might have a case under Hong Kong law if it argued that the paper offerings, sold in shops only blocks from the company’s own retail outlets, blurred “the distinctiveness” of Gucci’s brand or caused it harm.
     The subtleties of trademark law have yet to trickle down to the street level... Click here to read the full article.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Haochen Sun on Trademark Protection of Luxury Brands

"The Diversity of Interests in the Trademark Protection of Luxury Brands"
Haochen Sun
in Irene Calboli & Srividhya Ragavan (eds), Diversity in Intellectual Property: Identities, Interests, and Intersections
Cambridge University Press, 2015
Introduction (excerpt): During the past two decades, the luxury industry rapidly developed and expanded its presence in many major cities around the world.  In 2013, global luxury goods sales reached approximately $300 billion.  Culturally, as status symbols, luxury goods function to define class, social distinction, and personal beliefs and values.
     Luxury companies utilize their trademarks as status-signaling symbols to market their products and services.  From this perspective, trademarks have become one of their most valuable assets...
     But should trademark law serve the interests of luxury companies and their rich consumers?  This chapter explores this issue through the lens of the recent litigation between two French luxury fashion companies: Christian Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent. The former has made the red sole the iconic design feature of its footwear for women.  Christian Louboutin asserted that it should complete "territorial" control of the red sole, to be landmarked by flags of trademark protection.
Credit: Arroser 
    By focusing on this case, this chapter opens a perspective on the ramifications of the trademarkability of the red sole for the role of trademark law in distributing social resources and accommodating the diversity of interests of various stakeholders.  It argues that we should reconsider whether Louboutin's red sole mark is distinctive enough to warrant trademark protection.  The chapter proposes that this issue must be examined from the social justice perspective.  It contends that social justice should have the trumping power to deny trademark protection of the red sole mark even if it is adequately distinctive...