Failure to give reasons no laughing matter

The IPKat has learnt from Shanghai Daily of a horribly complicated Chinese IP dispute.

Wahaha Group is a Chinese food company. In 1996, it set up a joint venture with Danone called Wahaha Food Co. As part of the joint venture agreement, the Group was to transfer the Wahaha brand to the Food Co. However this never happened, and the Food Co is accusing the Group of setting up competing companies which have used the Wahaha brand without the Food Co’s permission.

The Group have retaliated by arguing that the Chinese State Trademark Office had refused to order the transfer of the mark from the Group to the Food Co, and therefore what the Group was doing was perfectly legal.

The Food Co has in turn sued the State Trademark Office, arguing that the Office’s decision should be with withdrawn because it did not provide any written explanation for its decision.

The IPKat reckons that failure to give reasons in a pretty serious procedural anomaly. However, this doesn’t necessarily help the Food Co, because presumably the same decision could be rendered again – but this time with reasons.
Failure to give reasons no laughing matter Failure to give reasons no laughing matter Reviewed by Unknown on Monday, September 03, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.