China: Conflict Between Enterprise Name And Prior Trademark – Comment And Analysis On Article 58 Of The Chinese Trademark Law 2013

Last Updated: 6 August 2014
Article by Jason Wang

* This article is the English translation for Mr. Wang's article in Chinese published on China Trademark magazine (Issue 12, 2013). China Trademark magazine is sponsored by China Trademark Association under supervision of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) overseeing the Chinese Trademark Office (CTMO) and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB).

The newly revised Chinese Trademark Law 2013 adopts Article 58 which prescribes as follows: "Where the registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark of others is used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name, which is likely to mislead the public and constitutes unfair competition, it shall be adjudicated under the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law." According to the interpretations from the Legislative Affairs Commission under the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress, this Article 58 "primarily aims to solve the conflict of rights between enterprise name and trademark under the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law," "such conflict of rights is unfair competition in nature, and this Article 58 is specifically regulated to link up with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law." 1 The issue of rights conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark is rather complicated, and Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 has provided directive guidance for resolution. However, the understanding and application of the newly adopted Article 58 are subject to further discussion and research, and need to be clarified in regulatory documents like Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law and practice.

I. How to understand "used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name?"

1. First question: Whether "used as a trade name in the enterprise name" means prominent use of a trade name?

Regarding the prominent use of a trade name, Rule 1(1) of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) Interpretations concerning Application of Laws in Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Trademarks [Fa Shi (2002) No. 32] expressly stated that prominent use of a trade name constitutes trademark infringement. Namely, "Where the word identical or similar to a registered trademark of others is prominently used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name on the identical or similar goods, which is likely to mislead the public," it shall constitute the situation of "causing, in other respects, prejudice to the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of others" prescribed by Article 52(5) of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001. However, with respect to "used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name" prescribed by Article 58 of theChinese Trademark Law 2013, it shall refer to non-prominent use of a trade name, which is entirely different from what is prescribed by the SPC Interpretations above. The new Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 expressly prescribes that the use of a trade name contained in the enterprise name is unfair competition, and shall be adjudicated under the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

In fact, there have been many relevant precedents in judicial practice before the adoption of Article 58 in theChinese Trademark Law 2013. For instance, the court held in the "Philips" case that, the defendant's act of marking "Supervised by Philips International Group (Hong Kong) Limited" on the product packing boxes is not trademark infringement under the Chinese Trademark Law 2001. However, as the plaintiff's registered trademark "Philips" enjoys a relatively high fame, the defendant's act of marking "Supervised by Philips International Group (Hong Kong) Limited" has violated the good faith principle. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant's act constitutes unfair competition under Article 4 of General Principles of the Chinese Civil Law and Article 2 of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law. 2 In the above case, the defendant does not use the trade name in a prominent way, therefore it is not trademark infringement. However, the above circumstance falls into the scope of Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013.

2.Second question: Whether "used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name" means non-prominent use of a trade name?

With respect to the application of law in the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark, Beijing courts have conducted the probing researches in as early as 2002. Rule 3 of Answers of Beijing High Court on Several Issues concerning Trial of Dispute Cases Arising from Conflict between Trademark and Use of Enterprise Name [Jing Gao Fa Fa (2002) No. 357] stated as follows: "In the conflict between trademark and enterprise name, the nature of infringer's act is mainly to damage in a legitimate manner the goodwill of others, presented by causing the consumers confused regarding the source of the goods or regarding the association among different operators. Therefore, these acts are generally unfair competition, and General Principles of the Chinese Civil Law and the Chinese Anti-UnfairCompetition Law shall apply. Where the word identical or similar to a registered trademark is independently or prominently used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name on the identical or similar goods, which is likely to mislead the relevant public, it shall be deemed as infringement upon the trademark registration right of others, and shall be subject to the Chinese Trademark Law 2001."

Later, the SPC stated in the SPC Reply regarding Zhen Tai Case [(2004) Min San Ta Zi No. 10], after consulting with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), as follows: "Where, in violation of the good faith principle, the word identical or similar to a registered trademark of others is used as a trade name, which is likely to mislead the relevant public, it may be adjudicated in accordance with General Principles of the Chinese Civil Law and Articles 2(1) and 2(2) of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law to judge whether it constitutes unfair competition or not." The SPC Opinions on Several Issues concerning Intellectual Property Trials Serving Overall Situation under Current Economic Situation [Fa Fa (2009) No. 23] further clarified as follows: "Where an enterprise name used in a prominent way infringes the right of a prior registered trademark, it shall be handled as trademark infringement. Where an enterprise name is used not in a prominent way, but is sufficient to cause confusion on the market and is in violation of fair competition, it shall be deemed as unfair competition." So far, the methodology, understanding and practice have basically come into mature regarding the application of different laws in dealing with prominent use and non-prominent use of an enterprise name.

Besides, the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 does not prescribe express regulations regarding the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark. However, Article 31 thereof regulates the conflict between trademark application and prior enterprise name, and Article 5(3) of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law regulates the conflict between enterprise name and prior enterprise name. Evidently, at the hierarchy of theChinese Trademark Law 2001 and the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law, protection by law for the trademark is not on the same level as the enterprise name, and the trademark is not properly protected under the law corresponding to the degree as it deserves. Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law and Rule 13 of Provisions on Well-known Trademark Recognition and Protection provide the rules regarding the conflict between enterprise name and well-known trademark. However, the content is relatively vague, the adjudication scope is extremely narrow, and the level of legal hierarchy is not sufficiently high. Although the SPC Reply regarding Zhen Tai Case [(2004) Min San Ta Zi No. 10] has prescribed that Article 2 of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law may be applied regarding the non-prominent use of trade name contained in the enterprise name, courts in practice are still relatively conservative in applying this Article 2. For instance, Jiangsu High Court held in a specific case that the non-prominent use of a trade name contained in the enterprise name does not infringe upon the plaintiff's right of the registered trademark. The court did not apply Article 2 of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law based on the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark registration. Instead, the court held that the defendant's said act infringes upon the plaintiff's enterprise name right with prior registration. 3 Article 58 of theChinese Trademark Law 2013 provides that the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark shall be handled in accordance with the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which in fact strengthens the protection of the prior trademark, and confirms, at the hierarchy of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 and theChinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the degree of legal protection for the prior trademark in the conflict between enterprise name and prior trademark.

3. Third question: Whether "used as a trade name contained in the enterprise name" coversthe registration of enterprise name?

Initially, Rule 39 of Implementing Measures for Administration of Enterprise Name Registration and Rule 2 of the SAIC Opinions of on Solving Several Issues Arising from Trademark and Enterprise Name [Gong Shang Biao Zi (1999) No. 81] prescribed principle regulations on the "acquisition" of enterprise name in addition to the "use" thereof, namely, the good faith principle shall be abided by and one shall not take advantage of the fame of other's trademark to conduct unfair competition. Subsequently, Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law and Article 13 of Provisions on Well-known Trademark Recognition and Protection, prescribed the specific provisions, but said specific provisions merely explicitly regulate the registration of enterprise name by using other's well-known trademark. In practice, the registration of enterprise name is closely related to non-prominent use of a trade name in the enterprise name, and the above two situations usually occur simultaneously.  The "use of a trade name contained in the enterprise name" under Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 shall be interpreted broadly as to cover both the non-prominent use of a trade name contained in the enterprise name and the registration of enterprise name.

Of course, with respect to the non-prominent use of a trade name contained in the enterprise name, regardless of the location for the registration of enterprise name, as long as the use of enterprise name occurs within territory of China, the Chinese enforcement agencies shall have jurisdiction.  However, for the registration of enterprise name by using prior mark owned by others, only when the registration of enterprise name occurs within territory of China, will Chinese enforcement agencies have jurisdiction. Regarding the registration of enterprise name occurring outside the territory of China, Chinese enforcement agencies should have no jurisdiction. In addition, where the registration of enterprise name occurs within territory of China, Chinese enforcement agencies may order such enterprise to change the registration of its enterprise name. However, how to execute more effectively judgments and decisions rendered by Chinese enforcement agencies regarding changing the registration of enterprise name? Whether the regulation on revocation of the registration of enterprise name and agencies with revocation authority under Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law may be reserved, and how to change such registration of enterprise name? How to regulate the registration of enterprise name more effectively? These questions still need further detailed analysis and discussion.

II. How to understand "registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark of others?"

1. First question: Whether "registered trademark" in "registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark of others" covers the registered well-known trademark? Whether Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 covers the conflict between enterprise name and registered well-known trademark?

No matter judging from the existing legal regulations, or judging from process of the third amendment to the Chinese Trademark Law, or judging from jurisprudential analysis, the "registered trademark" in the "registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark of others" shall cover the registered well-known trademark.

First, Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law,Rule 13 of Provisions on Well-known Trademark Recognition and Protection, and Rule 10 of the SPC Interpretations concerning Application of Laws in Trial of Civil Dispute Cases involving Well-known Trademark Protection [Fa Shi (2009) No. 3], and Rule 3 of the SPC Reply regarding Zhang Xiao Quan Case [(2003) Min San Ta Zi No. 1] have clearly covered the conflict between enterprise name and well-known trademark. Generally speaking, legislation is the summary and inheritance of legal documents of a relatively low hierarchy and the practice experience, rather than a sudden change out of nowhere or abrupt castle in the air. On the one hand, according to the legislation background and intention as well as the literal interpretation, Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law and Rule 13 of Provisions on Well-known Trademark Recognition and Protection can be comprehended as only regulating the registered well-known trademark, excluding (at least not explicitly including) the unregistered well-known trademark. Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 actually expands the protection scope to explicitly cover the unregistered well-known trademark in addition to the registered well-known trademark. On the other hand, for the registered trademark without well-known status, the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 and Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law only provided that those trademarks may prohibit others from using relevant signs on the identical or similar goods or services. However, the above laws and regulations do not prescribe clearly whether those trademarks may prohibit the non-prominent use of a trade name contained in the enterprise name or the registration of enterprise name.  For the registered well-known trademark, the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 provided those trademarks may prohibit others from using relevant signs on dissimilar goods or services, and Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law provided those trademarks may prohibit others from using the enterprise name. Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 provides that registered trademark without well-known status may prohibit others from using the enterprise name, which has extended the protection scope based on the past practice experience. If "registered trademark" did not cover the registered well-known trademark, then it would lead to a situation where the extent of protection for the registered well-known trademark is even lower than the unregistered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark.

Second, viewing from the legislative process of the third amendment to the Chinese Trademark Law, Article 124 of the Chinese Trademark Law (2010 Draft for Examination) provided by the Chinese Trademark Office (CTMO) and Article 62 of the Chinese Trademark Law (2011 Draft for Comments) provided by the Legislative Affairs Office of Chinese State Council both referred to the well-known trademark. Article 57 of the Chinese Trademark Law (2012 Draft for Comments) provided by the Legislative Affairs Commission under the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress prescribed the term as "well-known trademark, registered trademark." Since the concepts of "registered trademark" and "well-known trademark" are not in the same category or level, Article 58 of theChinese Trademark Law 2013 modifies "well-known trademark, registered trademark" to read as "registered trademark, unregistered well-known trademark". "Well-known trademark" includes the unregistered well-known trademark and the registered well-known trademark, and "registered trademark" includes the registered trademark without well-known status and the registered well-known trademark. Thus, the integrated wording of "registered trademark, unregistered well-known trademark" is more logical.

2.Second question: Whether the conflict between enterprise name and registered well-known trademark involves cross Class protection? Shall the term "misleading the public" in Article 58 and Article 13(3) of theChinese Trademark Law 2013 [Article 13(2) of theChinese Trademark Law 2001] be interpreted in the same way? How to interpretsuch term?

First,Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law, Rule 13 of Provisions on Well-known Trademark Recognition and Protection, the Chinese Trademark Law (2010 Draft for Examination) provided by the CTMO and the Chinese Trademark Law (2011 Draft for Comments) provided by the Legislative Affairs Office of Chinese State Council stipulated the terms as "well-known trademark" and "may deceiving or misleading the public." The Chinese Trademark Law (2012 Draft for Comments) provided by the Legislative Affairs Commission under the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress and Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 stipulated the terms as "well-known trademark, registered trademark" / "registered trademark, unregistered well-known trademark" and "misleading the public." That is, the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 continues to adopt the criteria of "misleading the public" after extending the protection scope from the registered well-known trademark to the registered trademark without well-known status and the unregistered well-known trademark. Then, whether the "confusion" element (confusion standard) applied for the registered trademark without well-known status and the unregistered well-known trademark is corresponding to the "misleading the public" element (association standard and dilution standard) prescribed under Article 13(3) of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013? Where the identical term appears in the same law, should such term be interpreted in the same way? What kind of unified interpretations may harmonize and coordinate the different standards applied to different types of above trademarks?

Second, Rule 3 of the SPC Reply regarding Zhang Xiao Quan Case prescribed as follows:  "Where use of the word identical to the well-known trademark of others with prior registration as the enterprise name or part of the enterprise name, and where the industry (or feature of business operation) of that enterprise is identical to or closely related to the goods or services designated under the registered trademark of others, which may objectively dilute the well-known trademark and damage the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark registrant, the court shall order to cease such act based on the request of the interested party." The SPC Reply deals specifically with circumstances that the industry (or feature of business operation) is "identical to" or "closely related to" goods or services designated under the registered trademark, in the meanwhile, the SPC Reply puts forward with the dilution standard.  It may probably be interpreted and comprehended as follows: The understanding of the legislators and the SPC regarding the protection scope of the registered well-known trademark at that time is so-called "Sole Cross", namely, the protection crosses the different Classes of goods or services (cross Class protection to dissimilar goods or services), "or" (rather than "and"), the protection crosses the different types of commercial signs (extending from the trademark to the enterprise name). As the understanding deepens, Rule 10 of the SPC Interpretations concerning Application of Laws in Trial of Civil Dispute Cases involving Well-known Trademark Protection explicitly expands the protection scope to "dissimilar" goods and services, namely, the plaintiff may request to prohibit the defendant from using the enterprise name identical or similar to the plaintiff's registered well-known trademark on dissimilar goods or services. The above interpretations have expanded the protection scope of the registered well-known trademark to so-called "Dual Crosses" (namely, prohibition scope for commercial signs is expanded from trademark to enterprise name, in the meanwhile, prohibition scope for Classes is expanded to dissimilar goods and services). Lastly, in judicial practice, there are also some precedents regarding the well-known trademark against the enterprise name by crossing Classes of goods and services (namely, "Dual Crosses"), such as "HONEYWELL," "ZHONG XIN in Chinese," "SWAROVSKI in Chinese," and "BMW", etc. 4

This theory of "Sole Cross" and "Dual Crosses" may probably explain the term of "misleading the public" appearing in different provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013. Article 13(3) of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 prescribes one type of "Sole Cross" (crossing the Classes of goods and services), and the association standard and the dilution standard will apply. While Rule 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law prescribes the other type of "Sole Cross" (crossing commercial signs), and the association standard and the dilution standard will also apply. For the registered well-known trademark against the enterprise name of others, the "Dual Crosses" standard (crossing the commercial signs as well as crossing the Classes of goods and services) is prescribed, and the association standard and the dilution standard will apply as well. Therefore, no matter crossing the Classes of goods and services or crossing the commercial signs, the criteria of "misleading the public" (the association standard and the dilution standard) shall apply.

3. Third question: Is the conflict between enterprise name and registered well-known trademark subject to the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law or the Chinese Trademark Law? Or both of them shall apply simultaneously?

This question concerns not only the registered well-known trademark, but also the registered trademark without well-known status and unregistered well-known trademark. As Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law as well as the SPC Replies and the SPC interpretations promulgated before the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 have already provided some regulations on the conflict of enterprise name and registered well-known trademark, those regulations shall be lined up with Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 or make some adjustments accordingly. Therefore, the author hereby discusses the application of Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013, by taking the conflict between enterprise name and registered well-known trademark as an example only.

Rule 2(2) of the SPC Interpretations concerning Application of Laws in Trial of Civil Dispute Cases involving Well-known Trademark Protection prescribes that the interested party may bring the lawsuit regarding infringement upon trademark registration or unfair competition lawsuit, on the ground that the enterprise name is identical or similar to its registered well-known trademark. The application of law also varies in judicial practice. For example, the "HONEYWELL" case and the "ZHONG XIN in Chinese" case applied the Chinese Trademark Law, while the "SWAROVSKI in Chinese" case applied both the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Chinese Trademark Law 2001. In the "HONEYWELL" case, the Court held as follows: The defendant's failure to observe the good faith principle or recognized business ethics when translating its enterprise name "KING POWER" into English as "HONEYWELL", which shows obvious fault, constitutes unfair competition. In light of Article 53 of Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law which prescribes that the registration of enterprise name by using the well-known trademark of others is infringement upon the right of registered trademark thereof, as the plaintiff's trademark "HONEYWELL" is recognized as well-known in this case, the use of "HONEYWELL" in the defendant's English enterprise name is also in violation of the right of registered trademark owned by others. And the court held that it is not necessary to cite the good faith principle in the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law as the general law when specific laws and regulations like the Chinese Trademark Law could directly regulate the defendant's above act.  Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 has expressly prescribed that circumstances similar to the aforementioned will be adjudicated under theChinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, upon effectiveness of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013, circumstances similar to the aforementioned shall be subject to Article 2 of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law. However, this shall not hamper the citation of Article 58 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013, and thus to reflect the association with the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

Footnotes:

1 Interpretations of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 (1st Edition), Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress (Eds.), Legal Publishing House, Oct. 2013, pp. 111-112

2 Beijing First Intermediate Court Civil Judgment (2005) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 11119

3 Jiangsu High Court Civil Judgment (2004) Su Min San Zhong Zi No. 059

4 Jiangsu Province Wuxi Intermediate Court Civil Judgment (2004) Xi Chu Zi No. 61, Shenyang Intermediate Court Civil Judgment (2005) Shen Zhong Min Si Chu Zi No. 70, Tianjin High Court Civil Judgment (2006) Jin Gao Min San Zhong Zi No. 21, Beijing Second Intermediate Court Civil Judgment (2008) Er Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 10067, Hunan High Court Civil Judgment (2009) Xiang Gao Fa Min San Chu Zi No. 1

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Jason Wang
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions