Watch out for the shadows
Companies seeking to enter the Chinese market can find they are already there. An increasing number of “well-known trademark” owners, trying to deal with the problems of counterfeiting and other illegal activities in China, are coming across “shadow companies” incorporated in Hong Kong.
ADVERTISEMENT
These bogus companies are incorporated by mainland Chinese shareholders under Hong Kong’s liberal company registration procedure, using names that mimic well-known trademarks. They are then used to create sham licences or letters of authorisation purporting to authorise use of the trademarks in China.
While there are provisions under Hong Kong’s Companies Ordinance for dealing with this problem, their current interpretation by the Companies Registry is forcing well-known trademark owners to start litigation in Hong Kong to stop the practice.
Until 1990, the registry was responsible for reviewing applications when a potential naming conflict occurred, and registration could take up to three months. The ordinance was amended to speed up the process, and the emphasis shifted to the private sector.
The amended ordinance retained two provisions aimed at preventing company name piracy, modelled on UK law.
The first prevents registration of a name if it is the same as, or too like, an existing company name, but limits a trademark owner to 12 months to file a complaint. At present, the registry rejects all applications under this provision unless the name in question is practically identical to an existing one.
The second provision is designed to prevent harm to the public through registration of a misleading company name. Yet the registry has placed the overriding emphasis on the nature of the company’s activities, rather than the misleading nature of its name. Even when faced with evidence of deliberately misleading conduct, such as the use of the company name to apply for bank loans in mainland China or the unauthorised use of well-known trademarks on a company letterhead, the registry has rejected each case.
There has not been a single successful complaint under this second provision in the last 18 months. Under UK law, the overriding consideration must be whether the ultimate decision finally makes sense; in Hong Kong, many of the registry’s decisions relating to such complaints fail to do so.
Well-known trademark owners are securing default judgments against shadow companies for trademark infringement in the courts in Hong Kong. These include orders requiring shadow companies to change their names and restraining them from using the trademarks in Hong Kong or elsewhere, including China. But the companies could perhaps be spared the expense of litigation if the registry amended its procedure.
The writer is an associate at Jones Day in Hong Kong
商标侵权：提防“影子公司”
意
欲进军中国市场的公司可能会发现，自己其实已经在这儿了。越来越多“知名商标”的所有者，在试图处理中国的制假和其它非法活动等问题时，正遭遇在香港注册成立的“影子公司”。
这些假公司是由中国大陆股东，利用香港宽松的公司注册程序组建成立的，使用了一些与知名商标相似的名称。然后，利用它们炮制伪造的执照或授权书，目的是在中国授权使用这些知名商标。
尽管香港《公司条例》(Companies Ordinance)中，包含处理这一问题的相关条款，但按照香港公司注册处(Companies Registry)目前对这些条款的解释，要终止此类行为，知名商标所有者必须在香港提起诉讼。
直到1990年，在公司命名可能造成冲突时，一直由该注册处负责审核相关申请， 而当时的注册过程可能长达三个月。为了加快这一过程，香港政府曾对《公司条例》作出修订，将针对的重点转移至私营领域。
修订后的《公司条例》效仿英国法律，保留了两条旨在制止盗用公司名称行为的条款。
第一项条款是防止注册与现有公司名称相同或极其类似的名称，但限制商标所有者必须在12个月内提起申诉。目前，除非在议名称与现有公司名称几乎完全相同，否则公司注册处对依照该规定提出的所有申请均不受理。
第二项条款旨在制止通过注册误导性公司名称而对公众造成损害的行为。然而，该注册处却将首要重点放在公司活动的性质上，而非其名称所具有的误导性。甚至当有证据表明，存在故意误导的行为，例如利用（盗用的）公司名在中国大陆申请银行贷款，或未经授权在公司信头使用知名商标时，该注册处也一一驳回了此类案件。
过去的18个月内，还没有一起依照第二项条款申诉成功的案例。根据英国法律，首要考虑的必须是最终决定是否具有决定性意义；而在香港，该注册处在此类申诉中作出的许多决定，均未能达到上述要求。
目前，针对侵犯商标权的“影子公司”，知名商标所有者正寻求获得香港法庭的缺席判决。这其中包括，勒令“影子公司”变更名称，限制它们在香港或其它地方（包括中国大陆）使用这些商标。不过，如果香港公司注册处修改其程序，这些公司或许可以节省一笔诉讼费用。
本文作者为香港众达国际法律事务所(Jones Day)助理律师
