Copyright protection on trademark in trademark right affirmation cases (I)

Linda Liu & Partners
Contact

[Author: Richard Gao]

As the most important intangible asset in business activities, a trademark with a novel, aesthetic, easy-to-remember and catchy design is often a powerful tool for business to open the market, maintain competitiveness and accumulate goodwill. Most businesses are willing to take the trouble to design their own trademark and apply for registration to have it protected. However, the protection of a registered trademark is subject to the goods or services approved for use and the country where the trademark is approved for registration. Applying for registration of a large number of trademarks for defensive purposes is not only costly, there is also some uncertainty about whether the registration will be granted, and even if it is registered successfully, there is still a risk that it will be cancelled due to non-use.

However, a trademark with strong originality may also be works protected under the Copyright Law. The difference lies in that the Copyright Law does not limit the protection of works to a specific class of goods or services. Moreover, Berne Convention provides an author who is a citizen of any member state or who first publishes a work in any member state is automatically protected in other member states. Therefore, the scope of copyright protection for works does not have the same strict territorial limitation as trademarks. Also, compared to other intellectual property rights such as design patents, works are protected for a longer period of time.

Article 32 of the Trademark Law provides that "the application for trademark registration shall not damage the existing prior rights of others". In trademark right affirmation cases, a valid prior copyright is one of the most common and effective prior rights against a later trademark. Then what is the difference between the protection of trademark right and copyright? What types of trademarks can be protected by the Copyright Law? How to judge the similarity between a trademark and works? This article will analyze these questions combining with trademark right affirmation cases in practice.

  1. Difference between trademark right and copyright

Trademark and copyright are two fundamental rights in modern intellectual property system. They are two different kinds of rights, with distinct differences in terms of protection objects, legislative goals, and protection principles.

  1. Trademark right

The protection object under the Trademark Law is a trademark, that is, a mark that can distinguish the goods (services) of a natural person, legal entity or other organization from those of others. A trademark right is a type of industrial property right.

Historically, trademarks were created to combat commercial fraud. A weaver filed a lawsuit in a civil court in England in the 15th century. The plaintiff, who had built a successful textile business, frequently used his logo on textiles to indicate that they were made by him. When another weaver noticed this phenomenon, he used the same logo on his inferior textiles. The plaintiff filed a fraud action, which the court upheld. Trademark rights evolved into a legal franchise after being increasingly analogized to proprietorship.

It can be seen that trademarks are primarily used to maintain market order and protect operators and public interests from the moment they are created. A trademark registrant can monopolize the use of its registered trademark for an extended period of time through renewal, which is beneficial for establishing market position, accumulating goodwill, and gaining competitive advantages. Therefore, the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is an absolute right, and the registrant has a monopoly right against others over the registered trademark it owns. Due to the monopolistic nature of trademark rights, the Trademark Law has imposed certain restrictions on the scope of trademark protection in order to prevent the scope of protection of registered trademarks from being too broad and impeding equal competition. A registered trademark can only be protected in respect of the identical or similar goods or services that have already been approved for use.

The Trademark Law's legislative goal is to maintain market competition order, prevent confusion, protect the interests of operators and the public, and promote the development of the market economy. Throughout the Trademark Law, the principles of "no confusion" and "honesty and credibility" have been applied. The Trademark Law does not require the wording and design of the trademark to be original, but only requires a minimum level of distinctiveness and differentiation, in order to realize the function and role of the trademark in distinguishing the producers of goods and service providers and indicating the source of goods or services.

  1. Copyright

The Copyright Law protects original works, specifically original intellectual achievements in the fields of literature, art, and science that can be expressed in a specific form. In order to be qualified as works in the sense of Copyright Law, works must meet the requirements of both "independent creation" and "minimum creativity."

Historically, copyright arose with the invention of the printing press. To combat piracy and protect the interests of printers, some kingdoms in Italy were the first to establish a system of printing franchise in the 15th century. In 1710, England passed the Statute of Anne, "legally confirmed the right of authors to print and publish their own works for the first time in history, so that copyright was no longer a privilege granted by the crown."

The legislative goal of Copyright Law is to encourage the creation and dissemination of intellectual works by protecting the rights and interests related to those works, and ultimately to promote the progress of culture and science. The principle of "distinction between ideas and expressions" runs throughout the Copyright Law. The Copyright Law does not protect ideas or emotions, but only original expressions of ideas or emotions in the fields of literature, art, music and science. "When the original expression of ideas is solely or extremely limited, even if the original expressions between different subjects are substantially similar to each other, they do not constitute copyright infringement to each other, otherwise the freedom of expression and freedom of action of others will be seriously impeded." Thus, the less creative a work is, the more stringent other conditions shall be for protection. However, in order to encourage the creation and dissemination of intellectual achievements, the Copyright Law only requires a work to have a minimum level of creativity and does not require the work to reach a certain "creative height." As long as one's own expression differs from that of others, the expression is considered to satisfy the element of "creativity." Thus, "even a kindergarten child's painting or calligraphy can satisfy the creative element. "

  1. Copyright protection in trademark right affirmation cases

Copyright is one of the "prior rights" stipulated in the first half of Article 32 of the Trademark Law of China. Although trademark right and copyright are two different rights, since both works and trademarks can be expressed in words, devices and other elements, trademarks with originality can be works protected by the Copyright Law.

As mentioned above, the protection of works under the Copyright Law is not restricted by the class of goods or services, therefore, copyright owners can claim their rights in trademark right affirmation cases without being restricted by the scope of goods or services. Moreover, according to the Copyright Law, once a work is completed, the author enjoys the copyright and does not need to obtain the right through registration. Therefore, claiming the copyright does not require proving that the work is well-known as in the case of "well-known trademarks." Therefore, in such cases, the copyrighted work claimed by the copyright owner (prior trademark owner) is generally also its registered trademark.

Although in practice, some people believe that giving prior copyrighted works more protection than "well-known trademarks" in trademark affirmation cases may undermine the existing trademark registration system, and therefore the criteria of originality and substantial similarity of works should be strictly controlled. However, the protection of the copyright of prior works of others in trademark right affirmation cases is actually in line with the principle of "good faith and credibility" of the Trademark Law and the legislative goal of encouraging lawful competition. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to protect works with originality in trademark cases. Even for works with little originality, as long as they meet the minimum requirements of the Copyright Law for originality of works, they should be recognized as works in the sense of the Copyright Law in the first place. When determining whether the work and trademark constitutes substantial similarity, the competent administrative authority and the court may consider the degree of originality of the work, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the work, and the subjective bad faith of the applicant of the disputed trademark in copying and imitating the work of others.

In such trademark right affirmation cases in which copyright is claimed, the competent authorities and courts generally consider the following factors in the examination and trial.

(a) whether the work of another person constitutes the work in the sense of Copyright Law;

(b) whether the other party enjoys prior copyright to the work;

(c) whether the prior work is substantially similar to the trademark at issue;

(d) whether the respondent has the possibility of access to the work of others

(e) Whether the disputed trademark registration application was filed without the permission of the copyright owner.

Among these issues, except for the issue of copyright ownership in item (b), the determination of issues (a) and (c) is often more critical.

  1. What kind of trademarks can be protected by Copyright Law

A trademark consists of words, devices, letters, numbers, three-dimensional marks, color combinations and sounds, as well as combinations of the above elements, among which words, devices and letters are the most common constituent elements of a trademark. The criteria for determining whether a trademark composed of various elements can constitute a work in the sense of the Copyright Law and whether the work and the disputed trademark constitute substantial similarity are different. The following analysis is made for several forms of trademarks that are commonly seen in practice.

1.Word marks in standard fonts are generally difficult to be protected by Copyright Law

A minimum degree of distinctiveness is required for a trademark to be able to perform its distinguishing function. As a result, word marks in standard fonts are typically short in order to meet the requirement of distinctiveness. However, in order to be considered an "original expression," written works protected by the Copyright Law must be of a certain length. If the text is too short, it may be interpreted as being unified with the idea or lacking originality and thus not protected. Therefore, word marks in standard fonts are generally not recognized as works in the sense of the Copyright Law and are difficult to obtain protection under the Copyright Law. For example, none of the following trademarks have been found to constitute works in the adjudication proceedings.

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark "xiaopiu" No. 34206476

In this case, copyright protection should be based on the fact that the disputed trademark is identical or substantially similar to other's prior copyrighted works. The CNIPA held that the disputed trademark is a purely alphabetical trademark rather than works in the sense of copyright. It is difficult to establish that the disputed trademark infringe the applicant's prior copyright.

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark "贝拉小蜜蜂" No. 11281923

In this case, the disputed trademark is a word mark, which is significantly different from the art work with prior copyright claimed by the applicant, so the disputed trademark cannot be found to have infringed the applicant's prior copyright.

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark "为爱,一诺千年" No. 19168183

The phrase "为爱,一诺千年" is a simple combination of Chinese characters that does not constitute an object protected by the Copyright Law of China, and thus the registration of the disputed trademark cannot be found to have infringed the applicant's prior copyright.

2.The designed word trademark with high originality can be protected by copyright law

Although the text content of the trademark itself is hardly protected by the Copyright Law, if the font design of the word mark is unique and highly original, it may still be protected by the Copyright Law, for example.

Applicant's trademark (works)

Opposed trademark

Decision on disapproving registration of the Trademark "DW DRUMS & Device" No. 50419043

The opponent’s "DW LOGO" artwork is unique in design and has relatively strong originality. The above-mentioned evidence provided by the opponent can prove that he enjoys copyright to the work which has been published and publicly used earlier, and the opposed party has the possibility of accessing to the work. The opposed trademark and the device logo are basically the same in composition elements, design style and visual effect, and have constituted substantial similarity.

Applicant's trademark (work)

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark "yamii" No. 38346092

The art work claimed by the applicant consists of the combination of the foreign language "yamii" with artistic design, which as a whole is original and belongs to the art works protected by the Copyright Law of China. The disputed trademark in this case is almost identical to the above-mentioned art work of the applicant in design style, expression and visual effect, which constitutes substantial similarity. Without the permission of the applicant, the respondent’s application for registration of the applicant's prior copyrighted work as a trademark damaged the applicant's prior copyright.

Opponent’s trademark (work)

Opposed trademark

Decision on disapproving registration of the Trademark "金色胡杨JINSEHUYANG " No. 51413991

The work has a certain degree of originality, and the opponent has used it as a trademark continuously until now. The opposed party has the possibility of knowing and accessing the opponent's works. The opposed trademark is basically the same as the art work in font design, expression and overall visual effect, which constitutes substantial similarity. Therefore, the opposed party's application for registration of the opposed trademark without the opponent's permission has damaged the prior copyright enjoyed by the opponent.

Applicant’s trademark (work)

争议商标

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark "POKEMON GO宝可梦" No. 20855054

The works "POKEMON" and "POKEMON GO", for which the applicant claimed the copyright, are original in design and have a certain aesthetic significance, and can be recognized as works in the sense of Copyright Law. "POKEMON GO", as an important part of the disputed trademark, is basically the same as "POKEMON" and "POKEMON GO", which the applicant enjoys prior copyright, in stylistic features and visual effects, and constitutes substantial similarities.

If the font design itself is relatively simple and does not reach a minimum level of originality, it is still difficult to qualify as works protected by the Copyright Law, for example:

Applicant’s trademark (work)

Opposed trademark

Review Decision on disapproving registration of the Trademark " HUDABEAUTY " No. 38509430

"Works" is defined as "an intellectual achievement in the fields of literature, art, and science that has originality and can be reproduced in some tangible form," so works protected by copyright law should not only be original, but also be able to express opinions, knowledge, thoughts, feelings, and other contents independently, so that the audience can obtain certain information from it. It should be more than just a string of words and letters. Although the former opponent submitted evidence to prove that it enjoyed copyright over "HUDABEAUTY", "HUDABEAUTY" is only a simple combination of letters with a slight graphic design, which lacked the creativity that a work should have, and thus it cannot be qualified as a work in the sense of copyright law. Therefore, the opposed trademark did not damage the prior copyright of the original opponent.

Furthermore, for designed word trademarks, because the object of protection is the font designs, not only must the words in the disputed trademark and the prior copyrighted work be identical in content, but the fonts must also be substantially similar. In the aforementioned cases supported by the authority, for example, the disputed trademark and the prior work were nearly identical in design style, expression, and visual effect, so the work was protected.

However, if the disputed trademark and the prior works do not reach the level of substantial similarity, the prior works will hardly be protected by the Copyright Law. For example, in the following cases, the CNIPA found that the disputed mark and the cited mark constituted similar marks, but held that they did not constitute substantial similarity in the sense of Copyright Law.

Applicant’s trademark (work)

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Device Trademark No. 30111384

The disputed trademark and the cited trademarks are similar in composition and overall effect, constituting similar marks, and their coexistence in the market is likely to lead the relevant public to believe that they are a series of trademarks from the same subject, or that there is a specific association between them, which is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding. Thus, the disputed mark and the cited marks constituted similar trademarks used on identical or similar goods, as referred to in Article 30 of the Trademark Law.

In this case, the disputed trademark is not substantially similar to the device works, for which the applicant claimed prior copyright, so the registration of the disputed trademark does not constitute "damage to others' prior copyright" as referred to in Article 32 of the Trademark Law of 2013.

3.Handwritten characters with relatively strong originality can be protected by the trademark law

Handwritten characters with relatively strong originality generally belong to the calligraphic works protected by the Copyright Law. Therefore, generally trademarks composed of handwritten characters with relatively strong originality can also be protected by the Copyright Law, for example

Applicant’s trademark (work)

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark“XS” No. 16347488

The letters "XS" in the applicant's trademark have been designed artistically with certain originality, and evidence 11 submitted by the applicant shows that the applicant registered the copyright of the above-mentioned "XS" work, which shows that the date of first publication was earlier than the application date of the disputed trademark. The disputed trademark and the applicant's "XS" works are nearly identical in composition details and overall visual effect, constituting substantial similarity.

Applicant’s trademark (work)

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark“修景堂” No. 23935452

In this case, the calligraphic artwork of the Chinese character "修" claimed by the applicant belongs to a work protected under the Copyright Law of China. The word "修" in the disputed trademark is basically the same as the applicant's claimed calligraphy work in visual effect, design details and form, which constitutes substantial similarity.

Applicant’s trademark (work)

Disputed trademark

Decision on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark“Mrs.Fields” No. 32054944

The work "Mrs. Fields & Devices", for which the applicant claimed prior copyright, possesses a certain degree of originality and meets the composition elements of art work as stipulated in the Copyright Law. The disputed trademark and the work involved almost have no differences in text composition, design techniques and visual effects, which constitute substantial similarity in the sense of copyright law.

1The History of Trademark Law, U.S.A. - Frank I. Schechter Intellectual Property Press

2"The Past Life of Copyright Law - The Birth of Annie's Decree" Copyright Cloud Research Society Public

3"Fundamentals of Copyright Law", Li Yang, Intellectual Property Publishing House

Written by:

Linda Liu & Partners
Contact
more
less

Linda Liu & Partners on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide