News Surveillance of exhibitions is proving more necessary than ever before. The recent global crisis encouraged some manufacturers to overstep all normal bounds. This event was an opportunity to remind them of some basic rules applicable to intellectual property.
The 2010 edition of the Hong Kong Watchmaking Fair was held from 6 to 10 September. For the occasion, the three halls of the Convention & Exhibition Centre welcomed 698 exhibitors, a similar number to last year (696), from 14 countries (17 in 2009). Exhibitors from Hong Kong and continental China were in a majority and occupied the bulk of the exhibition floor space. The remaining 10% was taken by exhibitors from other parts of the world including, just five Swiss houses. But Swiss watchmaking was not totally absent from the event because an important local retailer was exhibiting some of the most prestigious Swiss brands on his stand.
As had already been the case in 2008 and 2009, the FH repeated its surveillance action with a view to detecting any breach of intellectual property rights at the exhibition on behalf of the brands belonging to the Group for the Prevention of Counterfeiting. As soon the event opened, investigators from the FH centre in Hong Kong made a detailed examination of the 698 displays. Well-trained by now for this third session, the teams noted as discreetly and systematically as possible every breach, copy of a model or unlawful use of a brand name. The investigators also noted a number of display cabinets in which watches claiming - at best dubious – Swiss origin were on display. After due reflection and a review of the situation, the decision was taken to highlight the importance of the “Swiss” certification mark. Here, it is important to note that this indication by which we set such great store, enjoys special protection in Hong Kong. Following a long and expensive administrative procedure, the FH has recently become the sole owner of the “Swiss” mark. That being so, it is qualified to take action against any unauthorised use of this indication in the administrative zone of Hong Kong. However, caution must be the order of the day because the certification mark regime is complex and lawyers are not used to dealing with this concept in their routine practice. There was therefore a serious risk that our complaint might be regarded as invalid, or worse still, rejected outright. That would have constituted a most unfortunate precedent. The exhibitors concerned would then have had no way of making their case at the exhibition. That in turn would have made this failure still more resounding. The situation therefore called for a watertight case.
After discussion, the decision was taken that the effort was well worthwhile. The target was chosen carefully: an exhibitor from Hong Kong presented a whole collection of watches bearing the “Swiss” mark on his stand. Holding out the prospect of a big order, our investigators proved sufficiently convincing to obtain a fairly detailed offer which enabled us to confirm our worst suspicions: the watches in question, fitted with Japanese movements, incorporated no Swiss content. This proved that unlawful use was clearly being made of the Swiss designation of origin. The technical conditions for filing legal action were therefore met.
Despite our initial fears, the lawyer who was retained to deal with our action, demonstrated his clear understanding of the issues. He subscribed fully to our arguments, taking the view that the Swiss mark had clearly been breached in the present instance. This first decision was worth its weight in gold and will enable us to make real progress with the protection of the Swiss name in this part of the world.
For the rest, the event exceeded our targets with the following detailed results: 45 legal actions were taken by our teams (including the “Swiss” dossier), or seven less than in 2009. Of this number, the panel decided that 34 breaches had occurred (41 in 2009) and required the immediate withdrawal of the contested objects for the duration of the fair; 11 claims were dismissed (same number as in 2009) because the lawyers felt that the contested pieces had sufficiently clear differences to prevent them falling within the claimed scope of protection.
Once again, the exercise was profitable in many respects. Firstly, we were satisfied to obtain a first highly encouraging decision for our certification mark. Secondly, the number of breaches acknowledged is an impressive result. The cases which were dismissed were largely due to the lack of precision of the initial design registration. We are obliged to point out that some designs are not adequately protected in this part of the world which, it must be remembered, is the leading market for Swiss watches. Finally, this trade fair is a mine of invaluable information. All the information gathered during the week provides material for further study by the FH Centre teams investigating locally throughout the year. These are three good reasons not to miss the event. See you again next year!
September 27, 2010
