CANUS Taiwanese Distributor Defeated in Infringement Lawsuit.

The authorized distributor of Canus products from Canada claimed TWD 1 million in damages against a Taiwanese cosmetics store in Taipei over the said store ‘s use of the logo designed by the Canus distributor without due authorization.  The court entered a judgment in favor of the said store (Civil judgment entered by the Taiwan IP Court under docket (99) Min-Gong-Su No. 7; date of entry of judgment:  21 July 2011).

According to the IP Court, Sea Base International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sea Base”) acts as the authorized distributor of Canus Goat’s milk skin care products and also designs a logo “CERTIFIED DISTRIBUTOR IN TAIWAN CANUS”.  Sea Base asserted that they found the said store used the logo in question in their advertising literature without authorization in 2008, for which Sea Base had issued a notice to demand cease in using the logo in question.  The said store guaranteed to never use the logo in question again and also ran an apology notice in local newspapers.

However, in 2010, Sea Base again found the said store’s use of the logo in question in their advertising literature and such repeated act convinced Sea Base that the said store intentionally used the logo in question again.  Based on this reason, Sea Base pressed a charge under the Taiwan Fair Trade Act to claim TWD 1 million in damages against the said store.

The said store argued as defense that the advertising literature bearing the logo in question Sea Base presented as evidence was that the said store used in 2008, and therefore, it is groundless for Sea Base to assert their rights with it after both sides had reached a settlement.  In addition, the products sold in the said store do not carry the logo in question.

As reasoned by the IP Court, what the said store’s advertising literature advertises is Canus products, instead of the logo in question, and the advertisement is unlikely to mislead the consumers into relating the advertising literature of the said store to the logo in question.  In addition, the court dismissed Sea Base’s claim because Sea Base failed to produce evidence proving that the said store again used advertisement containing the logo in question in 2010.  This case is appealable.  (2011.07) 
/CCS