The Manufacturing industry sector about consumer goods recently always " hot " by series of complaints and denunciations about infringement of industrial property rights, unfair competition, even with signs "tricks "... and the typical case recently as disputes between Mr. Lam An Dau - chairman of Vinh Tien paper company and Ltd Northern Tie about notebooks paper products with logo "T deer" and "Vinh Tien," with IPRs infringement.
About for this case, if the two parties to sue in court aim at guarantee their rights, it may have more case occurred simultaneously in both civil and economic disputes. However, the contents of this article that give some basic opinion of lawyer of Newvision law firm about the dispute related to infringement of IPRs especially trademark.
On June 6th 2016, JSC Vinh Tien Paper (called Vinh Tien Paper) has issued Document No. 02 / CV-VT-2016 and posting at the website address http://www.vinhtienpaper.com .vn / tin-tuc / thong-bao-thuong-hieu-151.html, with content that TIE Northern co., ltd (referred to as the company TIE North) had violation of intellectual property rights of Vinh Tien Paper company.
Subsequently, the Vinh Tien paper company had sent text No. 03 / CV-VT-2016 in October 7th 2016 for the TIE Northern co., ltd, formerly Vinh Tien - Tie co., ltd about notice to terminate the contract allows the use brand (chargeable) No. 05/2014 / HDT-VTTIE signed on September 23rd 2014 between Vinh Tien Paper company and Vinh Tien TIE company .
Mr. LAM has created and released text ( in October 2016) with content for that TIE the Tie Northern company violated the contract should Vinh Tien company has terminated the contract and insisted that the TIE Northern company use this brand is "illegal" and infringement of IPRs.
Mr. LAM had authorized for INVESTIP company on behalf him sent to the company TIE Northern company writing 492/2016/CV-KC on 11.10.2016 . The text content for that company to TIE Northern company had violated the ownership of the Vinh Tien trademark , with text that is 2 a conclusion of inspection No. NH380-16YC /KLGĐ and No. 16YC /KLGĐ-NH381 in September 28th 2016.
One of the signs of trademark infringement
2. Some individual opinions.
Considering the company's behavior to Tie Northern company use the trademark has infringed the trademark ownership of Mr. LAM AN DAU - trademark owners and Vinh Tien. We need to consider the contract transferred the right to use the mark between the two parties. As well as consider the signs and evidence comes in. Specifically the following:
- Firstly, if the contract between the two companies remains in force, according to the company's arguments, TIE Northern company behavior using " Vinh Tien" marks for products of this company are in accordance with the law.
- On the contrary, as far as the arguments of Mr. Lam An Dau -if the contract transferred the right to use the mark between the two sides has ended due to a party to unilaterally terminate the contract then the behavior using " Vinh Tien" marks of the Tie Northern is illegal under the provisions of the law.
In summary, to review that Tie Northern company have IPRs infringement or not, we need to consider the contract between the two parties.
The content of the contract transfer the right to use a trademark between the two sides.
Company Rep TIE Northern invoked Article IX paragraph 4, that: the termination of the contract can only be made by Vinh Tien Paper when the TIE Northern company have violates payment terms and was VINH TIEN Paper reminded in writing three times that TIE don't make ... And actually, VINH TIEN Paper only once to send dispatches (No. 06 on 8/6/2015) to Tie the Northern (not to mention the payment) to recommend termination of the brand contracts, but Tie Northern has feedback that they do not agree. Therefore, the contract will remain in force.
It can be seen, the contract was signed between the two parties is not exclusive contract under Article 143 IP Law,
“ Article 143.- Types of industrial property object license contracts
2. Non-exclusive contract means a contract under which, within licensing scope and term, the licensor shall still have the rights to use the industrial property object and to enter into non-exclusive industrial property object license contracts with others.”
And the content of the contract is also consistent with the provisions in clause 1 article 144 of IP law.
However, the missing of the contract above is not referring to the "T and the little deer" logo are called" the little deer "that he mentioned. This contract just refers to the issue of transfer of rights to use Vinh Tien marks. As such, under the provisions of the IP law in clause 2 Article 129.
Article 129.- Acts of infringing upon the rights to marks, trade names and geographical indications
2. All acts of using commercial indications identical with, or similar to, others’ trade names having been used earlier for the same or similar type of goods or services, that cause confusion as to business entities, establishments or activities under such trade names shall be regarded as infringements of the rights to trade names.
And Article 130.- Acts of unfair competition
1. The following acts shall be regarded as acts of unfair competition:
a/ Using commercial indications to cause confusion as to business entities, business activities or commercial origin of goods or services;
Tie Northern company violated regulations on infringement to IPRs for his trademark Rooster as owners. And he took as well as Vinh Tien paper company can require the Tie company stop this infringement.
In summary, In the case of disputes between the two sides on Vinh Tien marks and marks "the deer", did a lot of things to do to clearly. Because the arguments both of sides given are not really convincing and transfer contract the right to use industrial property subject between the two sides also have not yet clearly. This opinions on here can not really accurate due to source information not directly and are limited. This is only part of the opinion of lawyers under the IP law to solve this case. If the two sides take the dispute in court, need to provide more evidence clearly to defend their rights.