Further in its reply, the Executive] 'Yuan stated that the exclusive right to the use of the plaintiffs'. trade larks continues to be effective only when the registered trade marks are the same as those actually in use In reply to this, the plaintiffs alleged that they do not claim protection ct these trade marks which have been altered, but do claim protection of! these trade marks which have been registered, and contend that the) opinion contained in this reply of the Executive Yuan is a mistaken view. The. plaintiffs contend that, if their trade" marks are not protected, the registration of trade marks would be rendered valueless.
From the interpretations of the provisions In Section 2 of Article 1 and Section 9 of Article 2 of, the! Trade Mark Law, ft is quite obvious (2) that where ' exclusive sight acquired by the registration of trade mark, the owner of such trade mark 1s entitled to the right enjoin another from using similar of identical trade mark on the same merchandise, and (2) that whether or not a trade mark similar depends on the fact whether there is any conspicuous difference between the main and distinct parts or features of the trade mark concerned. In this case the chain and anchor registers by' the plaintifis as their trade mark: each constitutes a separate design of 1 trade mark, and the trade maz} registered by' the Hah Kee Factory so combination of the two simile: designs, namely, that of a chain one hat of an anchor. It is. true tha in this respect the trade marks the said factory and the plaintiff are different. It is also true the the Chinese and English word: appearing in the trade marks different.
The Conspicuous Part It cannot, therefore, be said that the trade mark of the said factory is exactly the same as those of the plaintiffs, but it is more than clea, that the "anchor in one of tne plaintiff' trade marks constitutes 1% main and conspicuous part, and tke wise does the chain constitute the main and conspicuous partof the other Jplaintifis trade mark. Now, one-hall tthe main and conspicuous part the trade mark of the said factory is similar to the design of the anchor trade mark of the plairtif, clark & Ca, Ltd, and the other bolt of the design is similar to the chain trade mark of the plaintiff, J.
P. Coats, Ltd. Tt is obvious that} there are no conspicuous differences between the main features and parts of the trade mark of said factory' and the trade marks of the plaintiffs. The general appearances, Toeality, arrangement, and design of the Janchor and the chain of the trade mark of the said factory are similar to that of the plaintiffs' trade marks, 0, when the trade mark of the said factor and those of the plaintiffs parately located, differentia ton is no doubt dimteult.
With the above in mind, this! [Court cannot but find that the "Mao Mah" trade mark used by the said factory is similar to the "Chain" "Anchor" trade marks registered by the plaintifis. As the trade mark of the said factory 1s used on the same. kind of srchandise, the plaintiffs fare no doubt entitled to the right to enjoin its use by the said factory. 'The original decision rendered by the Trade Mark Bureau, cancelling the trade mark No. 12578, which was used long after the registration of the plaintifis' trade marks, cannot by the Ministry of Industry affirm. Ing the first decision is consequently marder. 'The defendant (the Executive Yuan) thorough Investigations into the signs. of the plaintiff' registered trade marks and those of the trade mark of the said factory. Then the defendant held that there were such changes in the plaintiffs! trade marks as constitute deviations wi frst Inquiring whether such were changes. of the essential and main parts the plaintif—s! trade marks. The de-snd ant then erroneously held that the trade market the said factory should not be subject to the exclusive right of tthe jaintifs to their registered trade marks.
In doing s0, the defendant reversed the original dec! slons and allowed the Trade Mark No. 12578 to remain on the Trade Mark Register.
This Court finds such holdings to be contrary to law and, therefore, reverses the decision fof the defendant and affirms the Aecision of the Ministry of Industry The complaint in so far us this part is concerned is well founded.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.