作者：楊素滿

由於社區最近爆發新型冠狀病毒，香港知識產權署(“知識產權署”)發布了自2020年1月28日以來第四次發出中斷香港專利註冊處，外觀設計註冊處和商標註冊處運作的通知。

知識產權署將每週檢查一次情況，以確定是否會發布進一步的中斷通知。

在中斷運作的期間，知識產權署將維持以下有限度的服務：

• 網上檢索系統 –公眾可以通過公共網上檢索系統進行搜索
• 電子提交服務–電子提交服務用戶可以通過電子提交系統以電子方式提交申請或其他文件
• 每個星期五出版《香港知識產權公報公告》
• 位於胡忠大廈二十四樓的公眾櫃檯服務（其辦公時間為星期一至五下午一時至下午五時四十五分, 並只在2月的17（星期一），19（星期三）和21（星期五）開放
• 熱線電話：2961 6901/2961 6820

所有文件可繼續以郵遞方式送交至胡忠大廈二十四樓的商標、外觀設計及專利註冊處。

中斷期間的注意事項：
商標註冊處

• 補救不足之處通知

根據《商標規則》第11條發出的不足之處通知書内原訂的有關補救不足之處的限期會順延至中斷公告所指明的日期，即緊隨註冊處中斷運作結束日的首個辦公日。
根據最近分別於2020年1月28日，2月1日，2月8日和2月14日於2020年發布的《中斷通知》（以下稱“中斷通知”），如果截止日期為1月29日至31日，2月3日至7日之間的任何一天， 2月10日至14日，或2020年2月17日至21日，將延長至2020年2月24日（“新限期”）。

• 處長意見通知書

同樣，中斷公告一旦生效，於處長根據《商標規則》第13條發出的意見通知書内原訂的有關提出書面回應/請求的限期會順延至中斷公告所指明的日期，即緊隨註冊處中斷運作結束日的首個辦公日。申請人應在新限期採取適當行動，確保其申請仍然有效。

• 異議程序

在中斷期間，在異議程序中應遵守的最後期限不一定延期。假如你原先的限期是在該中斷公告所涵蓋的時期之中， 則有關限期會自動延展至緊接中斷公告結束日的首個辦工日(“新限期”)。
但是，如果就根據《商標規則》中一些不能延展的時限而言，則應提醒訴訟各方在新的期限內採取適當的行動，以保留其在訴訟中的權利。

• 另一方提供文件

對於有爭議的事項，例如異議，如你的限期是根據收到另外一方的文件的日期而決定的（例如根據《商標規則》第17(1)條提交的反陳述），提交該文件的限期即由你收到該文件（以上述為例，即反對通知）當日起開始計算。因此，無論收到文件的日期是否在中斷公告所涵蓋的時期之中，應不會影響計算你下一步的限期。

專利和外觀設計註冊
一般而言，該期限會順延至緊隨專利／外觀設計註冊處中斷運作結束日的首個辦公日。儘管該期限獲延展，但如果有關維持／續期費是在原有期限屆滿後但在獲延展的期限屆滿前通過電子提交系統繳付，則由於系統的限制，該系統仍會要求申請人/所有者就「遲交」的款項繳付附加費用。在這種情況下，申請人/所有者完全有權在事後要求退還該附加費用。

網上註冊紀錄冊上的記項
儘管知識產權署會盡力更新網上的專利和外觀設計註冊紀錄冊上的記項，但在特殊個案中仍可能存有差異。如果申請人/所有者留意到自己的專利／外觀設計申請或註冊的狀態未有正確顯示在網上的專利／外觀設計註冊紀錄冊上，請與知識產權署聯絡，以便他們跟進並相應地更新記項。　

任何疑問，請聯繫楊素滿律師 (evelyne.yeung@oln-law.com)。 免責聲明：本文僅供參考。高李嚴律師事務所對任何人因本文所所載的任何內容而行所造成的任何損失和/或損害不承擔任何責任。

作者：陳韻祺, 謝昇餘及何樂為

打算在世界範圍內銷售產品的品牌持有者通常會發現商標的使用是維持其品牌完整性的寶貴工具。商標本質上是地域性的，因此必須在尋求保護的每個國家/地區提出申請。在香港，商標通過註冊受到《商標條例》（第559章）（“ TMO”）的保護。

然而，品牌擁有者可能會感到失望，因為即使他們成功地註冊了商標，也可能在他們看到平行進口商品（俗稱水貨）大量湧入市場時，沒有賦予他們在香港經銷商品的專有權利。在本文中，我們將探討香港法律是否以及如何將品牌所有者從困境中解救出來。

平行進口和用盡原則
平行進口（平行進口貨品/水貨）只不過是在國外合法製造和銷售但未經授權進口的非偽造商品。平行進口是指在進口地根本無法獲得產品時，或者當未經授權的第三方希望利用不同地點之間的價格差異時，才發生平行進口。在香港，最常見的平行進口商品包括化妝品和電子產品。

儘管國際上對於是否應限制平行進口沒有共識，但香港對商標商品採取了相對寬鬆的態度。這種方法可以確保不必不必要地阻止貿易商採購其物資，並確保消費者可以以最優惠的價格獲得最廣泛的商品。
TMO第20（1）條體現了 “國際用盡” 的原則，因此，如果商標持有人將有註冊商標的商品推出到世界上任何地方，則該項使用並不侵犯該註冊商標。這通常意味著商標權在首次授權銷售產品後就會被用盡（即使第一次銷售發生在國外）。因此， “國際用盡原則” 有時被稱為 “首次銷售原則” 。

貨物的條件（可能附帶條件）和假冒法律
另一方面，TMO第20（2）條規定了國際用盡規則的例外情況，即平行進口商品在世界上任何地方投放市場後，其狀況“已有所改變或已受損”，並且有關商標的聲譽或獨特性將受到“不利影響”。幾乎沒有判例法對此條的解釋，建議僅在對平行進口貨物進行了物理篡改的情況下才適用附加條件。有缺陷或變質的商品是一些明顯的例子。
或者，普通法中“冒充”侵權行為可被視為對其他訴訟因由的有益補充。

在平行進口的情況下，最可能適用假冒的情況是，貿易商誤以為平行進口的商品是“授權產品”，這意味著它們是通過官方經銷商進口的，而事實並非如此。 在這種情況下，《商品說明條例》（第362章）第7條也可能適用，因為該商人可能犯有虛假商品說明的罪行。

相反，如果交易者有作出足夠的指示警告消費者產品的差異，則不會構成假冒。

版權法的使用
商標法的主要目的是使消費者能夠識別商品的來源或原產地。因此，只要不混淆消費者，商標法就不太在意平行進口。即便如此，品牌擁有者仍可求助於版權法。

在香港，版權受《版權條例》（第528章）（“ CO”）劃分。為了享受版權保護，作品必須是原創的（從某種意義上說，這涉及作者的技能和勞動），並且必須以物質形式進行記錄。與商標不同，版權保護是自動的，不需要註冊或其他手續。

在2007年對CO的修正案中放寬了有關平行進口的某些規定後，未經版權持有者的同意進口、銷售或分銷受版權保護的平行商品（某些電腦軟件產品除外）仍會構成侵犯版權。 因此，將少量受版權保護的材料（包括繪畫，圖紙等）嵌入產品或其包裝中，就可以使用版權法的保護阻止第三方進口平行商品。在商標法(TMO)無法提供相同保護的情況下，這會是個好的策略。 

在某些情況下，根據CO，水貨進口商也可能會因侵犯版權而承擔刑事責任。

結論
品牌持有者可能無法完全避免平行進口，但我們強烈建議他們制定並實施一致的策略來解決他們所造成的問題。除了商標法，他們還可以研究其他法律領域以建立品牌保護計劃。如果您不幸發現自己的知識產權受到任何未經授權的人的侵犯，請電郵致anna.chan@oln-law.com或martin.tse@oln-law.com與我們聯繫，我們很樂意為您提供解答和幫助。

免責聲明：本文僅供參考。本文中的任何內容均不得解釋為針對任何人的任何正式法律建議。高李嚴律師行對因本文章所造成的任何行為所造成的任何損失和/或損害不承擔任何責任。

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.