Copyright Protection for your Brand when Trademark Protection is Unavailable

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, King & Wood - Hong Kong

At times, an international company may find that their application for registration of a trademark is rejected by the Chinese Trademark Office. When this happens and all administrative appeals are exhausted, are there alternative means of brand protection available in China?

One alternative may be found in the Chinese Copyright Law. Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised in 2010) provides copyright protection to written works, photographic works, sketches and other graphic works. The purpose of copyright law is intended to protect expressions of ideas and concepts for promotion and development of literary, artistic and scientific works.

On the other hand, trademark laws are commercial devices intended to provide trademark holders with the exclusive right to use a trademark to distinguish his goods and services from other traders to prevent public confusion. Although copyright law is intended to enhance art, culture and the sciences, and not protect brand owners, the law is sufficiently broad to offer a brand owner limited protection in some situations.

A word or simple phrase may be protected as a trademark but it may not be adequately expressed to obtain copyright protection. Unless a word phrase is comprehensive enough to express a thought, idea or concept, chances are it may not be protected by copyright. On the other hand, copyright does recognize photographic work, sketches and other graphic works as protectable works. Use of artistic designs, patterns, logos, devices, photographs or other artistic works alone or in conjunction with word marks as trademarks may allow a brand owner to be protected by the copyright law in China.

There are differences between the two types of intellectual property laws. Trademark protection may be of indefinite duration so long as the trademark holder continues to use the trademark to identify itself as the source of the covered goods and services and pays the necessary maintenance fees. On the other hand, where the copyright is held by the individual author, protection generally lasts the author’s life plus 50 years following his death. If the right is held by a legal entity, protection is for 50 years after its first publication. Trademark protection is tied to the specific mark for the class of goods and services for which the trademark is registered. Copyright protection is not so limited but covers usage of the protected work in different mediums and for different purposes. Copyright protection extends to translations and modifications of the protected work while trademark protection is tied to the registered mark itself.

The differences in protection reflect the differences in the purposes of the two sets of laws. Yet, the overlap between these laws may give brand owners limited protection in situations where protection of trademark law is unavailable. To be protected, brand owners must understand the intentions and purposes of copyright law and create works that fall within its protection.
 

Just Do It!? Protecting Advertising Slogans in China Part I

By Jiang Ling, Partner, King & Wood's Trademark Department

Concise and vivid advertising slogans quickly draw the public's attention and are integral to a company's brand. Over years of use and promotion, some slogans have become well-known to the public, such as Nike's "Just do it",  Adidas' "Impossible is nothing" and DeBeers'  "Diamonds are forever." In many ways, such slogans are often no less important than the company's logo and other marks. As such, companies must figure how to protect and prevent the unlicensed use of their advertising slogans. Accomplishing this in China presents a unique set of considerations.

 

Advertising slogans, composed of words in the form of phrases, formally possess both the characteristics of both literal works and trademarks. Therefore, in principle, they can be the protected by the PRC Copyright Law ("Copyright Law") and the PRC Trademark Law ("Trademark Law").

Trademark Protection

The Trademark Law provides that:

"Any visual signs of words, devices, letters, numerals or any combination of the above elements, which being able to distinguish the goods or service of one entity from the others, can be registered as trademarks."

Accordingly, advertising brand names consisting of words are acceptable for trademark. As to whether registration is granted, all trademarks go through an official examination to determine if they possess due distinctiveness and can function as indicators the products they represent. In terms of common word marks, the trademark law does not require a word mark to be original or coined in order to achieve distinctiveness. Generally, as long as the words used by a trademark are not the generic name of the goods or does not directly indicate the features of the products, they are considered distinctive and capable of distinguishing its origin. Hence, "Apple", "Great Wall" and other dictionary words possess just as much distinctiveness as the coined words "NEC", "TCL".

Second, the words used by a brand trademark need not be totally unrelated to the features of the products. For instance, "Safeguard" indicates the features of the products in certain a way, but as long as the indication is not a direct description, the mark does not typically lose its distinctiveness.

However, the examination on trademarks for slogans tends to be more stringent both in terms of the examination criteria employed and in its application by the trademark authorities. According to the Examination Criteria issued by the Trademark Office, a slogan that does "not indicate the characteristics of the products" is one of the most elementary requirements for the registration of a slogan trademark. In addition, slogan trademarks should be original and non-popularly used, which sets a higher threshold in the judgment of their distinctiveness and thereby greatly increases the difficulty in getting them registered in the PRC.

As to whether a trademark is original, it is not difficult to judge in the case of common word marks. Non-dictionary words can most easily be regarded or alleged as "original" words, such as "Haier", "Canon" and "Philips". It seems that applying words in a non-dictionary or non-traditional way, an applicant can relatively easily meet the "originality" component.

The originality of slogans, on the other hand, is not so easy to ascertain. As a short phrase consisting of words, the purpose of slogan is to promote the concept, culture and image of the enterprises and their products, which requires it to be expressed in a way familiar and comprehensible to the general public. Hence, slogan trademarks cannot differ far from the language used by people in daily life. There may be some uniqueness in the sentence structuring, but the slogan ultimately cannot avoid being tinted with a sense of popularity. As such, the originality of a slogan is intrinsically hard to demonstrate.

As different people can have different views and feelings on what is popularly used, this makes Trademark Office's examination subjective and uncertain. The following slogans have previously applied for registration as trademarks: "The world swings with me", "Inspiration lights life", "Your vision, Our future", "Listening creates the future", "Sense the world, foresee the future" and "Share the moment, share the life" of which the Trademark Office directly approved the registration for "The world swings with me", "Inspiration lights life" and "Your vision, Our future", while rejecting the rest for lack of distinctiveness. The Office even makes a contradictory conclusion to the same slogan applied for different goods. For example, the Eastman Kodak Company's slogan "Share the moment, Share life" was approved in for pictures, but was denied in for cameras.

However, Article 11 of the Trademark Law provides that slogans that lack distinctiveness cannot be registered as trademarks with the exception of "those that have acquired distinctiveness through use ". According to this provision, if the slogans have established sole association with certain enterprises in the public recognition through use and are capable of functioning as a distinguisher of their source, they can be granted with trademark registration. As this exceptional provision further increases the threshold of registration, meanwhile it has opened a new path for the registration of slogan trademarks. Having met the requirements of this provision by proving the acquired distinctiveness through use, the slogans mentioned above, i.e. "Listening creates the future" of KENWOOD, "Sense the world, foresee the future" of OMRON and "Share the moment, Share the life" of Kodak, which were preliminarily rejected by the Trademark Office, have eventually all been approved for registration.

 

Co-existence Agreements--"a must"--in Trademark Rejection Reviews

Successfully handling rejection reviews, based on a prior similar mark, in the past has proven difficult.  Rather than simply giving up registration of an important trademark, recent China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) decisions indicate that an effective alternative for applicants is trying to reach a co-existence agreement with the owner of the cited mark.  If there is a slight difference between the preliminarily rejected trademark and the cited mark, and the marks do not cover identical goods or services, a co-existence agreement could become “a must” for overcoming a preliminary official rejection.

Recently we received a favorable decision for a client from the TRAB on a trademark rejection review. Since the rejected trademark and the cited mark differed only in one of ten letters and the two marks also covered similar goods, we expected the board to reaffirm the previous rejection based on Chinese trademark examination criteria. The obvious deciding factor resulting in a favorable review was the Co-existence Agreement entered into by our client with the owner of the cited mark. The co-existence agreement in essence consented to the registration and use of the trademark by our client in China.

Written by Zhu Fangjin, Associate, Trademark Group