作者：杨素满

由于社区最近爆发新型冠状病毒，香港知识产权署(“知识产权署”)发布了自2020年1月28日以来第四次发出中断香港专利注册处，外观设计注册处和商标注册处运作的通知。

知识产权署将每周检查一次情况，以确定是否会发布进一步的中断通知。

在中断运作的期间，知识产权署将维持以下有限度的服务：

• 网上检索系统 –公众可以通过公共网上检索系统进行搜索
• 电子提交服务–电子提交服务用户可以通过电子提交系统以电子方式提交申请或其他文件
• 每个星期五出版《香港知识产权公报公告》
• 位于胡忠大厦二十四楼的公众柜台服务（其办公时间为星期一至五下午一时至下午五时四十五分, 并只在2月的17（星期一），19（星期三）和21（星期五）开放
• 热线电话：2961 6901/2961 6820

所有文件可继续以邮递方式送交至胡忠大厦二十四楼的商标、外观设计及专利注册处。

中断期间的注意事项：
 

商标注册处

• 补救不足之处通知

根据《商标规则》第11条发出的不足之处通知书内原订的有关补救不足之处的限期会顺延至中断公告所指明的日期，即紧随注册处中断运作结束日的首个办公日。 根据最近分别于2020年1月28日，2月1日，2月8日和2月14日于2020年发布的《中断通知》（以下称“中断通知”），如果截止日期为1月29日至31日，2月3日至7日之间的任何一天， 2月10日至14日，或2020年2月17日至21日，将延长至2020年2月24日（“新限期”）。

• 处长意見通知书 

同样，中断公告一旦生效，于处长根据《商标规则》第13条发出的意见通知书内原订的有关提出书面回应/请求的限期会顺延至中断公告所指明的日期，即紧随注册处中断运作结束日的首个办公日。申请人应在新限期采取适当行动，确保其申请仍然有效。

• 异议程序

在中断期间，在异议程序中应遵守的最后期限不一定延期。假如你原先的限期是在该中断公告所涵盖的时期之中， 则有关限期会自动延展至紧接中断公告结束日的首个办工日(“新限期”)。
但是，如果就根据《商标规则》中一些不能延展的时限而言，则应提醒诉讼各方在新的期限采取适当的行动，以保留其在诉讼中的权利。

• 另一方提供文件

对于有争议的事项，例如异议，如你的限期是根据收到另外一方的文件的日期而决定的（例如根据《商标规则》第17(1)条提交的反陈述），提交该文件的限期即由你收到该文件（以上述为例，即反对通知）当日起开始计算。因此，无论收到文件的日期是否在中断公告所涵盖的时期之中，应不会影响计算你下一步的限期。

专利和外观设计注册 
一般而言，该期限会顺延至紧随专利／外观设计注册处中断运作结束日的首个办公日。尽管该期限获延展，但如果有关维持／续期费是在原有期限届满后但在获延展的期限届满前通过电子提交系统缴付，则由于系统的限制，该系统仍会要求申请人/所有者就「迟交」的款项缴付附加费用。在这种情况下，申请人/所有者完全有权在事后要求退还该附加费用。

网上注册纪录册上的记项 
尽管知识产权署会尽力更新网上的专利和外观设计注册纪录册上的记项，但在特殊个案中仍可能存有差异。如果申请人/所有者留意到自己的专利／外观设计申请或注册的状态未有正确显示在网上的专利／外观设计注册纪录册上，请与知识产权署联络，以便他们跟进并相应地更新记项

如果您对以上内容有任何疑问，请联系杨素满律师 (evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com)。 免责声明：本文仅供参考。高李严律师事务所对任何人因本文所所载的任何内容而行所造成的任何损失和/或损害不承担任何责任。

作者：陈韵祺, 谢升余及何乐为

打算在世界范围内销售产品的品牌持有者通常会发现商标的使用是维持其品牌完整性的宝贵工具。商标本质上是地域性的，因此必须在寻求保护的每个国家/地区提出申请。在香港，商标通过注册受到《商标条例》（第559章）（“ TMO”）的保护。

然而，品牌拥有者可能会感到失望，因为即使他们成功地注册了商标，也可能在他们看到平行进口商品（俗称水货）大量涌入市场时，没有赋予他们在香港经销商品的专有权利。在本文中，我们将探讨香港法律是否以及如何将品牌所有者从困境中解救出来。

平行进口和用尽原则
平行进口（平行进口货品/水货）只不过是在国外合法制造和销售但未经授权进口的非伪造商品。平行进口是指在进口地根本无法获得产品时，或者当未经授权的第三方希望利用不同地点之间的价格差异时，才发生平行进口。在香港，最常见的平行进口商品包括化妆品和电子产品。

尽管国际上对于是否应限制平行进口没有共识，但香港对商标商品采取了相对宽松的态度。这种方法可以确保不必不必要地阻止贸易商采购其物资，并确保消费者可以以最优惠的价格获得最广泛的商品。

TMO第20（1）条体现了 “国际用尽” 的原则，因此，如果商标持有人将有注册商标的商品推出到世界上任何地方，则该项使用并不侵犯该注册商标。这通常意味着商标权在首次授权销售产品后就会被用尽（即使第一次销售发生在国外）。因此， “国际用尽原则” 有时被称为 “首次销售原则” 。

货物的条件（可能附带条件）和假冒法律
另一方面，TMO第20（2）条规定了国际用尽规则的例外情况，即平行进口商品在世界上任何地方投放市场后，其状况“已有所改变或已受损”，并且有关商标的声誉或独特性将受到“不利影响”。几乎没有判例法对此条的解释，建议仅在对平行进口货物进行了物理篡改的情况下才适用附加条件。有缺陷或变质的商品是一些明显的例子。

或者，普通法中“冒充”侵权行为可被视为对其他诉讼因由的有益补充。
在平行进口的情况下，最可能适用假冒的情况是，贸易商误以为平行进口的商品是“授权产品”，这意味着它们是通过官方经销商进口的，而事实并非如此。在这种情况下，《商品说明条例》（第362章）第7条也可能适用，因为该商人可能犯有虚假商品说明的罪行。

相反，如果交易者有作出足够的指示警告消费者产品的差异，则不会构成假冒。

版权法的使用
商标法的主要目的是使消费者能够识别商品的来源或原产地。因此，只要不混淆消费者，商标法就不太在意平行进口。即便如此，品牌拥有者仍可求助于版权法。

在香港，版权受《版权条例》（第528章）（“ CO”）划分。为了享受版权保护，作品必须是原创的（从某种意义上说，这涉及作者的技能和劳动），并且必须以物质形式进行记录。与商标不同，版权保护是自动的，不需要注册或其他手续。

在2007年对CO的修正案中放宽了有关平行进口的某些规定后，未经版权持有者的同意进口、销售或分销受版权保护的平行商品（某些电脑软件产品除外）仍会构成侵犯版权。因此，将少量受版权保护的材料（包括绘画，图纸等）嵌入产品或其包装中，就可以使用版权法的保护阻止第三方进口平行商品。在商标法(TMO)无法提供相同保护的情况下，这会是个好的策略。

在某些情况下，根据CO，水货进口商也可能会因侵犯版权而承担刑事责任。

结论
品牌持有者可能无法完全避免平行进口，但我们强烈建议他们制定并实施一致的策略来解决他们所造成的问题。除了商标法，他们还可以研究其他法律领域以建立品牌保护计划。如果您不幸发现自己的知识产权受到任何未经授权的人的侵犯，请电邮致anna.chan@oln-law.com或martin.tse@oln-law.com 与我们联系，我们很乐意为您提供解答和帮助。

免责声明：本文仅供参考。本文中的任何内容均不得解释为针对任何人的任何正式法律建议。高李严律师行对因本文章所造成的任何行为所造成的任何损失和/或损害不承担任何责任。

Human creativity takes many forms. As with many forms of creativity, new games lead to disputes over who is entitled to exploit them. But could we actually protect the rule in the new game by preventing others from exploiting it?

Copyright

Copyright can offer protection to the set of rules if it is in written form (e.g. instruction booklet) or visual form (e.g. video). However, copyright only provides protection against unauthorized substantial copying of copyrighted work, e.g. the set of rules or video. Therefore, copyright does not offer protection if someone plays the game in accordance with the new form of rules.

Even though rules standing alone are not copyrightable, it does not mean that any or all expression related to game rule is unprotectable. It is because almost all expressive elements of a game are related in some way to the rules of the game.

In US case – Incredible Technologies v Virtual Technologies Inc (No. 03-3785), the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals held that “sequences” and “arrangement” in video games can “provide something new or additional over the idea” and hence are entitled to claim copyright protection, even though the Seven Circuit held that copying an arcade golf game’s control panel and instruction guide did not constitute copyright infringement because the copied materials were functional elements of the allegedly infringed game.

Interestingly, the court in another US case – Tetris Holding, LLC v Xio Interactive Inc (United States District Court For The District Of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 09-6115) raise examples as to which part of the video game can be copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards and graphical works, which are expressive elements in the video game.

This case examined the similarities between Tetris – “a facially simple puzzle game in which the player is tasked with creating complete horizontal lines along the bottom of the playing field by fitting several types of geometric block pieces (called tetrominos) together,” and Mino – “a Tetris-inspired game that could be described in the same fashion”.

The court found “the dimensions of the playing field, the display of ‘garbage’ lines, the appearance of ‘ghost’ or shadow pieces, the display of the next piece to fall, the change in color of the pieces when they lock with the accumulated pieces, and the appearance of squares automatically filling in the game board when the game is over” are protectable under copyright.

In summary, even though historically, the rules of the games have not been protected by copyright, recent cases as discussed above showed that video games inventors are likely entitled to claim copyright protection by simply providing “sequences” and “arrangements” in the video game.

Patent

The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International (Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit, No. 13–298) has provided steps as to how to protect an abstract idea (game rules) under patent. The Supreme Court in Alice explained in two steps.

The first step requires that the claims be “viewed as a whole” to determine “whether the claims at issues are directed to abstract ideas” as the abstract ideas category embodies the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.

The second step requires “a consideration of the claim elements…both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”

A claim that recites an abstract idea can be patent eligible if it contains an ‘incentive concept’ – i.e. an element or combination of elements that are ‘‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the itself.” The claims “must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. . . Transformation into a patent-eligible application requires more than simply stating the abstract idea while adding the words apply it.” The additional features must be more than well-understood, routine and conventional.

In the case of Alice, Supreme Court held the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” is not enough for patent eligibility.

As such, the key principle outlined in this case is that game inventors should make sure the game rules must contain “incentive concept” and include “additional features”.

Passing off

Passing off is a common law tort, which is a form of IP enforcement by holders of unregistered trademarks against the unauthorized use of the mark or packaging including “get-up” and presented the copied goods and services as if it were their good or services.

There are 3 requirements (referred to as “classic trinity”) to satisfy before initiating Passing Off action as laid down in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc. [1990] 1 All E.R. 873, – a.k.a. “the Jif Lemon case”.

1^st requirement: The Plaintiff must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying “get-up” (whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or package) under which his particular good or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognized by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff’s good or services.

2^nd requirement: The Plaintiff must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that the goods or services are of the plaintiff.

3^rd requirement: The Plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffers or, in quia timet action, that he is likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s misrepresentation that the source of the defendant’s goods or services is the same as the source if those offered by the plaintiff.

However, passing off mainly applies to goods or services, but there are no precedents on video games.

There is “extended” tort of passing-off in an English case Erven Warnink v. Townend & Sons Ltd [1979] AC 731, [1980] R.P.C. 31, – a.k.a. “the Advocaat case”. In this case, the Plaintiff produced a drink called “Advocaat” while the Defendant produced a drink made from eggs and fortified wine which they called “Old English Advocaat”. The latter drink, although having same alcoholic strength as the Plaintiff’s, could be considerably cheaper price because, being a wine rather than spirit-based drink, it attracted less excise duty. The Plaintiff found that the defendants were taking away an appreciable share of the market and sought an injunction to prevent them from describing their drink as “Advocaat”.

The court held the name “Advocaat” had acquired a substantial reputation and goodwill as connoting a drink with recognized qualities of appearance, taste, strength and satisfaction. Accordingly, D had committed the tort of passing off.

There is also another case regarding “extended” tort of passing-off. In the case of Bollinger v Costa Brave Wine [1961] RPC 116, which concerned the term “Spanish champagne”, the court held “champagne” could not be used other than in relation to sparkling wine produced in the Champagne district of France. Use of the term “Spanish champagne” in relation to perlada sparkling wine from Spain was likely to mislead people who were not knowledgeable about champagne into thinking that the defendant’s sparkling wine was champagne from France.

This case extends the principle of passing off beyond protection of the products to protect defined classes of products associated with a particular word or name which has or is believed to have recognizable and distinctive qualities.

But it is uncertain as to whether  passing off applies to video game rules. Further, it is only applicable if the client has built up a substantial reputation and goodwill in the mark for the goods (e.g. actual product) or services (e.g. business activity).

Based on the above judgements, game rule inventors should promote the new game rules by other means e.g. online games, sports magazine in order to build up the reputation quickly so as to enjoy the “extended” protection under tort of passing off.

Trademark

Additional protection can be obtained under trademark. The game owner is advised to devise a name (word mark)/logo (design mark) for the game closely relating to the new idea/rules. The possible trademark classification for those game is Class 16 (e.g. instructional and teaching materials) or Class 41 (e.g. provision of video games and computer games on-line).

To register a trade mark, the required information and documents are: (1) a clear representation of the trademark; (2) specification of goods and services; and (3) the name and address of the applicant in English. It will normally take around 8-12 months to register a trademark application.

A trade mark registration is prima facie evidence to establish the trade mark owner’s right to sue the infringer, hence, there is no need to establish goodwill and reputation as in the case of passing off action as discussed above.

Should you have any questions related to this article, please contact evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com and we will be pleased to answer and assist.