Pepsi’s Storm in China Rages on

In my last post about Pepsi’s “Blue Storm” trademark infringement litigation, I summarized the Zhejiang Province People’s Supreme Court’s holding. The Court basically ruled Shanghai Pepsi Co., Ltd. (“SH Pepsi”), one of Pepsi’s joint ventures in China, infringed on Lanye’s rights in the “Blue Storm” trademark, and it ordered SH Pepsi to pay damages in the amount of ¥ 3 million. It also ordered a public apology to be issued by SH Pepsi in a Zhejiang newspaper. The deadline for SH Pepsi to comply with the orders has passed.

SH Pepsi is in the process of applying for the Zhejiang Province People’s Supreme Court to reconsider its decisions. So, it seems that the storm continues.

On the one hand, I understand why SH Pepsi has determined to storm on. It probably has spent millions in the “Blue Storm” advertisement campaign, which might have involved contracts that obligate Pepsi. Given the high stakes, SH Pepsi does not want to and cannot afford to throw in the white tower yet.

On the other, SH Pepsi’s perseverance in this case, judged from the outside, seems misplaced. Litigation of this scale and consequence generates bad press from all sides. Often times, big companies try to avoid bad press at all costs. Pepsi apparently does not share the same PR strategy here.

One more thing about this case that keeps bugging me is why Lanye did not join the other Pepsi joint ventures in China in the lawsuit. They are all involved in the same alleged infringement in various parts of the country. For the life of me, I failed to see the reason behind it other than legal malpractice.

Wahaha's China arbitration request granted despite pendency of Swedish and U.S. lawsuits

Brad Luo's articles have illustrated the escalation of the trademark dispute between China's beverage giant, Wahaha, and the French company, Danone. The dispute centers around the ownership of trademarks used by 39 joint ventures which have evolved contractually between the companies since 1996. Danone claims that Wahaha has been using the trademark to unfairly compete with Danone and the joint ventures; Wahaha claims that the trademark transfer contracts, under which the joint ventures operate, was never approved by China's trademark authority and are void.

Choice of venue issues are complex in multi-national lawsuits and there is no great statutory relief in certain venues which will protect parties from multi-venue fights. This has proven to be a problem for foreign companies contracting with Chinese entities, in particular. An example is the case of China National Metal Products Import/Export Company vs. Apex Digital, 379 F.3d 796 (9th Circuit 2004). Apex Digital (Apex) is a California corporation that imports consumer electronic goods from China which it sells under its own brand name to retailers in the United States. In 2000, Apex entered into a series of contracts to purchase DVD Players from China National Metal Products Import/Export Company (Metal). Each of the contracts contained the following identical arbitration clause:

All disputes from or in connection with this Contract shall be submitted to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC") for arbitration which shall be conducted by the Commission in Beijing or by its Shenzhen Sub-Commission in Shenzhen or by its Shanghai Sub-commission in Shanghai at the Claimant's option in accordance with the Commission's arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for arbitration. The arbitral award is final and binding upon both parties.

In March 2001, Apex filed a Statement of Claims concerning nine (9) of the purchase orders at the Shanghai sub-commission and the case was accepted. A week later, Metal decided that Beijing would be a better venue and filed a Statement of Claims concerning eight (8) of the purchase orders with CIETAC in Beijing.

Not surprisingly, Apex objected and requested consolidation of all claims into the already commenced Shanghai arbitration. CIETAC rejected Apex's objection and held that CIETAC could entertain both arbitrations at the same time, in different forums because the arbitrations were not "entirely the same." The difference? The Shanghai arbitration involved one additional contract.

The Beijing arbitration panel, unsurprisingly, ruled in favor of Metal as it had predicted. Metal sought enforcement in the United States. The United States District Court held, and the Ninth District affirmed, that the United States had to defer to CIETAC's internal rules to determine the validity of arbitral awards and had to enforce the Beijing decision.

Given the fact that the Wahaha/Danone dispute has been filed in three global forums, it raises serious questions: What do the joint venture contracts say about dispute resolution, venue selection, consolidation of disputes (if anything)? What happens if the Chinese tribunal rules in favor of Wahaha (that the IP transfer wasn't approved by the China Trademark Office) - will it void the contract in full or just negate the trademark transfer issues?

The Apex case exemplifies the impact of the dispute resolution clauses on the relationship and mechanisms to resolve disagreements. The agreement should always specify one institution for dispute resolution and, moreover, the issue of case consolidation should be taken into consideration when drafting contracts between multi-national parties. In Apex, CIETAC was asked to consolidate cases but refused to do so. Such refusal to consolidate cases is not improper in China. Thus, the only protection in these type of disputes is either to include a clause in the initial contract which expressly agrees to the consolidation of any cases concerning the transaction or the parties; or the warring entities can find a way to agree to consolidate the cases after a dispute arises.


In the Wahaha/Danone case, it is unlikely that Wahaha is going to agree to consolidate the cases in any venue other than Hangzhou. Hangzhou is the capital of China's eastern Zhejiang province and is home turf for Wahaha and Zong Qinghou. As the former chairman and founder of Wahaha (in the late 1980's), Zong has been the target of the allegations made by Danone and the primary catalyst for the escalated battle between the companies in the past 2 months.

Wahaha v. Danone: Who Will Have the Last Laugh?

The Wahaha and Danone dispute appears to have been kicked into high gear.

Following Danone’s lawsuit in California state court against a subsidiary company of Wahaha, the former board director of the Danon-Wahaha Joint Venture, Zong Qinghou, announced on June 13, 2007 in a press conference that he would submit the dispute between Wahaha and Danone to arbitration in China. Specifically, the dispute involves a trademark transfer agreement Wahaha and Danone. The venue of arbitration is the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission.

In order to follow the development of dispute, which has gone global literally, it is better grasp the chronology of the relationship between Wahaha and Danone.

First, the occasion warrants a brief intro of the players. Danone is currently one of the world’s leading global corporations in fresh dairy products and bottled water, and its production and sales spans around the world. Wahaha is a bit more complicated. Wahaha Group consists of three large blocks of corporate entities. The first is the original Wahaha Group Ltd., and the City of Hangzhou owns 46% of the stock, and the rest of stocks of the company are unevenly distributed among Mr. Zong, the management, and employees (before 2000, Wahaha Group was a solely state-owned enterprise). The second one is the Wahaha-Danone Joint Equity Venture Group. Wahaha Group Ltd. Controls 49% of the shares, and Danone holds 51%. The third bunch is a host of non-joint venture companies established and operated in essence by Wahaha Group Ltd. and Hangzhou Wahaha Food Products Ltd.

Second, the following is the chronology of the relationship between Danone and Wahaha.

1. 02/29/1996-----Joint Venture Agreement between Wahaha Group Ltd. and Danone, including trademark transfer agreement, non-compete agreement, and confidentiality agreement

2. 03/28/1996-----Wahaha Group Ltd., Danone, and a Hong Kong enterprise agreed to form five joint ventures in China.

3. 04/1996-----Mr. Zong became the chairman of board of directors of the said five joint ventures.

4. From 1996—2007, the original five joint ventures evolved into 39 joint ventures, and everybody made a ton of money.

5. Problems began to surface in 2000 after the reorganization of Wahaha Group Ltd., which became a private entity with the Hangzhou government holding 46% of its stocks. The reorganized Wahaha Group Ltd. began to establish its own joint ventures and separate subsidiary entities, which totaled 17 entities in a span of six years. Apparently, Wahaha Group Ltd. used the Wahaha-related trademark in violation of the Wahaha-Danone Joint Venture Agreement.

6. Danone kept quiet with respect to Wahaha Group’s use of the trademark and apparent breach of the non-compete agreement inherent in the Joint Venture Agreement.

7. In late 2006, Danone initiated an offer to buy all of Wahaha Group Ltd.’s companies which are developed outside of the Joint Venture Agreement, and Wahaha Group Ltd. rejected the offer. The dispute went public in early 2007, escalating into a full blown fight over the ownership and usage of the Wahaha trademark.

8. 05/09/2007, Danone Asia submitted the disputes with Wahaha Group Ltd. with respect to the Joint Venture Agreement to the Stockholm Arbitration Institute.

9. 06/04/2007, Danone sued, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ever Maple Trading, a company based in the British Virgin Islands, and Hangzhou Hongsheng Beverage, as well as two individuals related to these companies. The two companies are believed to have ties with Wahaha Group Ltd. and Mr. Zong.

10. 06/05/2007, Mr. Zong tendered his resignation as the chairman of the board of directors of the Wahaha-Daone Joint Venture.

11. 06/13/2007, Mr. Zong announced his plan to submit the trademark dispute arising out of the Joint Venture Agreement to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission.

As can be seen, the facts of this dispute are complicated and convoluted, and both parties are engaging in interesting tactics to gain procedural advantages. I am trying to get my hands on the Joint Venture Agreement to see exactly what they agreed to in 1996. Tomorrow, I will blog about the thrust of both parties’ contentions in their respective arbitration, trial proceedings.

Chinese “David” Brought Down American “Goliath” for Trademark Infringement

Pepsi "Blue Storm" Litigation in China

Zhejiang Province Supreme People’s Court rendered its fascinating opinion after months of trial. This case involves yet another two beverage companies. It seems that the beverage industry in China is a highly contentious one in light of the Starbucks case and the Wahaha v. DANONE dispute. Before I digress further, let me get on with the tale of “David” and “Goliath” in modern day Chinese battle ground for market share and trademark protection.

Plaintiff / appellant is a little known alcohol & beverage company named “Lanye Alcohol Beverage Co., Ltd.”, hereafter “Lanye” and/or “Chinese David.”

Defendant / appellee is the well known Shanghai Pepsi Cola Beverage Co., Ltd, hereafter “Pepsi” and/or “Goliath.”

Another Defendant / appellee is a local supermarket that sells beverage drinks, including Pepsi Cola. And the company’s name is Hangzhou Lianhua Group, Ltd. (hereafter “seller”.)

On December 14, 2003, Lanye registered its trademark “蓝色风暴” with the Chinese Trademark Office, which can be translated as “blue storm.” The registered trademark consists of the Chinese characters, phonetic spelling of the characters, and graphic designs associated with the trademark. Lanye produces bear, bottled water, cola, etc.

In 2005, Pepsi began using the Chinese characters in its massive advertising campaign in China. The characters were also printed next to the well known Pepsi trademark itself to promote the Pepsi coke.

Guess what? Lanye sued Pepsi for trademark infringement. One of the reasons for initiating the suit was that local Industry & Commerce Administration where Lanye is located seized its beverage drinks because Lanye was suspected of infringing on Pepsi’s trademark. (How can anyone stomach that?)

The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court held for Pepsi on two operative issues:

a. whether Pepsi’s use of “Blue Storm” constitutes trademark infringement according to the Trademark law since Pepsi utilizes its own well-known trademark in connection with the Lanye’s trademark in question

b. whether Pepsi’s use of “Blue Storm”caused confusion among consumers, thus injuring the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Supreme People’s Court reversed the lower court’s holding on both issues. On the first issue, the court cites Article Three of the Implementation Measures of the Chinese Trademark Law, stating that trademark use is a broad concept, which encompasses the use on product, product packaging, company stationery, product advertisement, and trade shows. Therefore, Pepsi’s use of the “Blue Storm” falls within the purview of trademark use.

In addition, whether a logo constitutes a trademark is determined by the function of the logo in commercial activities. If the logo is capable of assisting consumers in distinguishing products or the origins of services received, the logo is a trademark. Based on discovery, Pepsi’s use of the “Blue Storm” did function as a tool for consumer to identify the logo with the overall brand name of Pepsi, irrespective of the Pepsi trademark.

With respect to the issue of consumer confusion, the court concluded that Pepsi’ use of “Blue Storm” as a trademark did create confusion among consumers relative to Lanye’s registered trademark. The Court noted that because of Pepsi’s extensive use of “Blue Storm” Lanye’s registered trademark has all but lost its value and function—brand name identification for Lanye.

In its conclusion, the court ordered Pepsi to pay ¥ 3,000,000 to Lanye and to issue public notice of the infringement. The Seller was, according to the court a bona fide purchaser, not liable for monetary damages, but has the responsibility to stop selling any infringing products manufactured by Pepsi. Curisously enough, the Court did not order the destruction of the existing infringing Pepsi cokes; it reasoned that would be impractical and would constitute waste.

For some reason, this case did not generate a lot of hype. Maybe Pepsi has done a good job of P.R. so that the embarrassment will not expand back home. After all, being held accountable for infringing on the trademark of a little known local company is not as tasty as a Pepsi Coke.

A few observations about the case:

a. Not all Chinese courts are willing to bend over backwards to protect foreign companies if they do not follow the Chinese law.

b. Chinese companies are getting savvy about protecting their IP rights.

c. Why Pepsi failed to perform a basic check on the “Blue Storm” with the Chinese Trademark Office totally and completely beats me.

d. Even if you own your own registered trademark and you are a big company, you still cannot take the trademark of another small company without due process of law. Not in America, not in China either.

e. Don’t assume anything, especially when you are a foreign company in China.

Trademark Protection in China—More Steps Forward

On the heels of the Starbucks v. Shanghai Starbuck case, another foreign trademark holder doing business in China had its day in court and won. Of course, this is only in the trial court; appeals might follow.

In this case the plaintiff is the French company Lacoste, trademark holder of the famous “Crocodile” clothing trademark. Lacoste registered the “Crocodile” mark in October 1980, and the China Trade Mark Office, according to a Chinese report, put this mark in question on the list of “Famous Trademarks to Be Targeted for Protection.” (《全国重点商标保护名录》)

Defendants are three Chinese companies: Guangzhou Tai Crocodile Clothing Co., Ltd. (“Guangzhou Crocodile”), and two other sellers of Guangzhou Crocodile’s clothes. Curiously enough, Guangzhou Crocodile had its trademark “Golden Crocodile” registered, which can be described as a crocodile crouching in water waves, and with the Chinese Character “金鳄”next to them, which means “golden crocodile.” According to the facts of the case, Golden Crocodile places the crocodile portion of its mark in the prominent areas of clothes, while sews on the water wave and the Chinese characters in the background, which bear the same colors as the materials used for clothes as a whole. The intention of this, I guess, is to display the crocodile prominently, and let the rest of the mark fade away into the background.

Lacoste sued, joining the three defendants, in Beijing’s First Intermediate People’s Court for trademark infringement and trademark dilution, and it further pleaded for an injunction, public notice of such infringement, seeking also damages in the amount of ￥1,000,000.

Congratulations to Lacoste. It pretty much wrote its own ticket in its pleadings because the Court gave it basically all it asked for: infringement and dilution of the Crocodile mark by Guangzhou Crocodile; cessation of production by Guangzhou Crocodile; destruction of all infringing clothes; damages in the amount of ￥760,000; a public apology to be issued by the three defendants on the China Industry & Commerce Times.

Yes, this is a sweet victory for Lacoste and its lawyers. While the board members of Lacoste celebrate with French wine, I celebrate this case with this blog post for the following reasons:

1. The court carefully examined the circumstances of Defendant Guangzhou Crocodile’s use of its own mark; it focused on Guangzhou Crocodile’s misuse of its mark, and held that the misuse of a legitimate trademark, in certain circumstances, could constitute infringement of another’s trademark.

2. The Court cited a case out of Changchun Intermediate People’s Court. In that case, the Crocodile trademark was held to be a “famous mark.” The Court cited this holding in part to bolster the fact that Lacoste has an indeed famous mark, which is entitled to legal protection in China.

3. The Court extended infringement liability to sellers of products that infringed on the trademark holder’s rights. In its opinion, the Court expressed in strong language that the two co-defendants, as sellers of clothing, failed to investigate thoroughly the legitimacy of Guangzhou Crocodile’s use of its trademark, and such an obviously subjective failure to investigate resulted in sales that violated the rights of Lacoste. And such a gross failure to investigate warrants civil liability (negligence, tort liability).

4. The remedies handed out by the Court are appropriate. Even though the Court did not grant the full amount sought in damages by Lacoste, it imparted more value to Lacoste and trademark holders than the ￥24,000 can buy in China—a clear message that reads: “Don’t Mess with Legitimate Trademarks of Others!”

Cheers! À votre santé ! 干杯!!

STARBUCKS v. SHANGHAI COPYCAT

The latest news report out of China marks a sweet victory for STARBUCKS in its legal battle with a Shanghai Coffee house--Shanghai Starbuck Coffee Ltd.

After the Shanghai 2nd Intermiediate Court's affirming its own decision to hold Shanghai Starbuck Coffee liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition on January 4,2007, Shanghai Starbuck hesitated to change its business name as ordered. The court followed through on its order and forced it to change its corporate name. After almost four months of game play, Shanghai Starbuck finally did change its name to "Shanghai Fang Yun Coffee Ltd." (上海芳韵咖啡馆有限公司）

This is yet another unprecedented step in Chinese court's progress in enforcing IP rights in China. The court not only handed down a victory to STARBUCKS but also saw through the actual enforcement of its own orders.

To help readers understand the history of the entire case, the following is my brief of this fascinating IP case in China.


In re STARBUCKS

Parties:
Plaintiffs / Appellees: Starbucks Co. and Shanghai Unified Coffee, Ltd.

Defendants/ Appellants: Shanghai Xing Bake Coffee, Ltd. and Shanghai Xing Bake Coffee, Ltd. Nanjing Road Branch.

Facts:

A. Plaintiffs:
Starbucks Co. registered the name and pictures associated with its trademark “STARBUCKS” in 1996 in P.R. China; it then registered 30 types of products associated with “STARBUCKS” in 1997; and it registered more services and products associated with the trademark “STARBUCKS” in China.

On February 1, 1999, Starbucks Co. first registered the Chinese version of Starbucks—“Xing Bake” [星巴克] in Taiwan, however it did not begin the registration of “Xing Bake” in China until 1998. While waiting for an approval for the registration of “Xing Bake”, Starbucks began its massive advertising with the trademark “STARBUCKS” and “Xing Bake”. In addition, the first Starbucks chain store began operation in Beijing in January 1999.

Starbucks Co. registered the “Xing Bake” [星巴克] trademark on December 28, 1999.

On March 23, 2000, Starbucks entered into a contract with co-plaintiff Shanghai Unified Coffee, allowing it the legal right to use the trademarks “STARBUCKS”, “Xing Bake” [星巴克], and other unregistered trademark.


B. Defendants:
While Starbucks Co.’s application for the trademark “Xing Bake” [星巴克] was pending, the defendants pre-registered the corporate name “Xing Bake” [星巴克] and gained approval. On March 9, 2000, Shanghai Xing Bake Coffee, Ltd. was incorporated, whose principal business is the sale of beverages, western style meals, and retail alcoholic drinks. And it formed its branch office, the co-defendant, on July 1, 2003.

They printed “Starbuck Coffee” on its price list, and they used characters “Xing Bake Coffee” in their store front and advertising billboards.

C. Lawsuit:
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition in the trial court, Shanghai Intermediary Court.

D. Procedural History:
The trial court held that the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ trademark rights and engaged in unfair competition.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Shanghai affirmed and required the appellants to issue a public apology, pay damages and attorneys fees to the appellees.

On motion to reconsider by the appellants, the Supreme Court again affirmed.

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant’s successful pre-registration of the corporate name “Xing Bake” defeats the appellees’ claim of trademark infringement?

[Holding: No.]

2. Whether the appellant’s usage of the corporate name “Xing Bake” and “Starbuck Coffee” constitute unfair competition?

[Holding: Yes.]

Analysis:

1. Pre-registration of the corporate name “Xing Bake” [星巴克]
a. This pre-registration of corporate name constitutes subjective bad faith because the president of the future company Shanghai Xing Bake Coffee, Ltd. acknowledged to a major Chinese newspaper in 2003 that the trademark and name “Xing Bake” [星巴克] is very famous and the Starbucks Co. has been very successful. So he decided to race the Starbucks Co. to the corporation name registration office.

b. The trademarks “STARBUCKS” and “Xing Bake” [星巴克] have been widely known in China prior to the appellants’ corporate name registration.

c. Starbucks Co.’s usage of and attainment of relevant rights to “Xing Bake” [星巴克] are earlier than Shanghai Xing Bake Coffee, Ltd. Further, the appellant’s registration of the corporate name “Xing Bake” [星巴克] with the express knowledge that such registration was inconsistent with rights of others violated Trademark Law of China. And the appellant’s behavior violated the basic commercial ethics—equality, honesty and good faith.

2. Unfair Competition
a. The appellants’ use of “ Starbuck”, although different from the appellees’ trademark “STARBUCKS” constituted a confusion considering prominence and reputation of the appellees’ trademark. In addition, “Starbuck” is the key element of the appelees’ trademark.

b. The appellants’ pictorial emblems—one small circle inside a bigger one, green background color, and two stars embedded inside the overlapped area of the two circles generated confusion with the appellees’ trademark “STARBUCKS” and other registered trademarks.


Brad Luo’s Comments:

1. Why didn’t Starbucks Co. register the Chinese version of “STARBUCKS”-- “Xing Bake” [星巴克] at the same time it did in Taiwan? Why didn’t it register as soon as such a trade name became known in Chinese? It could have avoided all these litigation had it done so.

Coupled with Pfizer’s recent loss in a Chinese court for failing to be the first one to register the Chinese version of “Viagra”—“Weige” [伟哥] (meaning “Great Man”), the Chinese courts are speaking clearly and loudly—REGISTER YOUR TRADEMARKS EARLY, BOTH IN ENGLISH AND CHINESE. Also, it is important to know that the trademark registration regimes in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are independent of each other, and that a trademark owner needs to register the mark throughout the Greater China area.

2. It is settled law that China is a “first register first served” jurisdiction with respect to trademarks. However, the Supreme Court of Shanghai mentioned in dicta that Starbucks Co. did use the Chinese version “Xing Bake” [星巴克] first. Does this mean that courts in China will start looking into who first used a trademark or trade name? It is too early to tell. But the safest thing is to REGISTER FIRST!