China: Trademark Distinctiveness Affects The Determination Of Preemptive Registration In Bad Faith

Last Updated: 21 January 2015
Article by Jason Wang

The latter half of Article 32 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 (Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001) stipulates that" preemptive registration by unfair means of a trademark with certain fame already used by another party" shall not be approved ("Bad Faith Filing Provision"). From the literal understanding of such provision, the fame of the trademark with prior use and the bad faith of the applicant of the disputed trademark are two requirements for application of law for the Bad Faith Filing Provision. In addition, the originality (namely, inherent distinctiveness, known as trademark distinctiveness) of the trademark is the premise and important consideration factor for the application of law for the Bad Faith Filing Provision, and has a significant impact on the two requirements for application of this provision. Specifically, the trademark distinctiveness directly affects the evidentiary requirements for the fame of trademark with prior use, and is an important consideration factor in determining the bad faith of the applicant of the disputed trademark.

1. The trademark distinctiveness is the premise and an important consideration factor for application of law for the Bad Faith Filing Provision

First, from the perspective of the legislative framework of the Chinese Trademark Law, the provisions of registrability of the trademark per se (absolute ground provisions) and the provisions of rights conflict (relative ground provisions) are the two basic requirements to determine whether a sign could obtain trademark registration eventually. First, the registrability of the sign per se as a trademark belongs to absolute ground, including the use prohibition provision under Article 10 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 and the registration prohibition provision under Articles 11 and 12 thereof. Second, whether a trademark conflicting with prior trademarks or other prior rights of third parties belongs to relative ground, including the Bad Faith Filing Provision expounded in this article and other provisions. Throughout the Chinese Trademark Law, Articles 9 and 10 thereof constitute masterplan provisions to determine whether a sign could be approved for registration as a trademark eventually. According to Article 9 thereof, the trademark application "shall have distinctive features for facilitating identification" and "shall not conflict with any prior legal rights." The use prohibition provision under Article 10 thereof prescribes the sign which shall not be used (or registered) as a trademark. The registration prohibition provision under Articles 11 and 12 embodies the first half part of Article 9 thereof, stipulating the "distinctive features for facilitating identification." The Bad Faith Filing Provision is one of the embodiments of the provision, namely, the trademark application "shall not conflict with any prior legal rights" under the latter half part of Article 9 thereof. In other words, when applying the Bad Faith Filing Provision, rather than considering Article 32 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 alone, provisions of trademark distinctiveness (absolute ground provisions) under Articles 11 and 12 thereof shall also be included in the scope of the adjudication in light of the masterplan provision of Article 9 thereof.

Second, from the perspective of sequence of application of law for the Chinese Trademark Law,provisions of the registrability of the trademark per se (including trademark distinctiveness provisions) prevail over provisions of the rights conflict, and provisions of the absolute ground prevail over provisions of the relative ground. "The trademark with certain fame already used by another party" in the Bad Faith Filing Provision obviously refers to an unregistered trademark, which is a TRADEMARK, rather than any "sign," that may serve to identify the source of goods or services. Therefore, when applying the Bad Faith Filing Provision, the distinctiveness stipulated under Articles 11 and 12 thereof shall be first adjudicated to ascertain whether the unregistered trademark with prior use meets the lowest requirements of being protected as a "trademark" prescribed by the Chinese Trademark Law. In other words, the distinctiveness of the trademark per se is the basic premise for the application of law for the Bad Faith Filing Provision. Of course, if the disputed trademark or sign with prior use clearly does not involve any trademark distinctiveness issue, the adjudication authority may probably not make a clear comment, but this does not mean that the premise does not exist. When the subject trademark or the sign with prior use does involve the distinctiveness issue, the adjudication authority must make a clear comment, and the sign with prior use should not be identified as the prior "right" in opposition or dispute cancellation proceeding. Of course, it will not prevent other parties from raising opposition or dispute cancellation against the disputed trademark based on absolute ground.

Third, from the perspective of judicial interpretations on protecting the unregistered trademark, the provision of unregistered well-known trademark should be applied by analogy to the unregistered trademark "with certain fame already used by another party." Rule 12 of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) Interpretations on Several Issues concerning Legal Application in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving the Protection of Well-known Trademark (Fa Shi [2009] No. 3) stipulates that "where the interested party requests to protect the unregistered well-known trademark which falls under the circumstances of being prohibited from using or registering as a trademark under Articles 10, 11 and 12 thereof, such request shall not be upheld by the court." Namely, one of the basic premises of granting the legal protection for the unregistered well-known trademark is the registrability of the sign per se as a trademark. The higher hierarchy of this judicial interpretation is actually Articles 9 and 12 of the Chinese Trademark Law. The above-mentioned judicial interpretation aims at unregistered well-known trademark, embodying that the provisions of registrability of trademark per se prevail over the provisions of rights conflict. Based on the same logic and jurisprudence, the unregistered trademark with certain fame where the Bad Faith Filing Provision applies should also be the same case. Otherwise, the protection for unregistered trademark with certain fame of the Bad Faith Filing Provision under Article 32 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013 is even stronger than the unregistered well-known trademark under Paragraph 2, Article 13 thereof, which is obviously contrary to the legislative purpose.

Fourth, from the perspective of the judicial practice in related cases, the registrability of a sign as a trademark per se should be the premise of the Bad Faith Filing Provision, in other words, the sign in violation of the prohibitory provisions should not apply the Bad Faith Filing Provision. The second instance judgment of Beijing High Court on the "Little Fat Sheep in Chinese" case ruled that according to Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 (Article 32 of the Chinese Trademark Law2013), no one shall register, by unfair or illicit means, a trademark which others have already used but not yet registered in their own name before the Chinese Trademark Office ("CTMO"). When applying the Bad Faith Filing Provision under Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001, in addition to the two requirements, namely, the prior use of trademark bearing certain fame and the bad faith of the applicant of disputed trademark, another requirement is that the trademark with prior use shall have the registrability. The trademark prohibited from registration by law shall have failed to meet that requirement.1 The first instance judgment of Beijing First Intermediate Court on the "Ca Ca Jing in Chinese" case ruled that prohibitory provisions related to Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 regulates the act of preemptively registering the trademark with prior use and certain fame, on the premise of not violating the other provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law. The trademark "Ca Ca Jing in Chinese" with prior use designated on the goods of "disinfection cotton" in Class 5 was rejected by the CTMO due to the violation of Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 11 thereof. Because the trademark with prior use is in violation of the prohibitory provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law, the Bad Faith Filing Provision under Article 31 thereofshall not apply to this case2

2. The trademark distinctiveness directly affects the evidentiary requirements of the fame of the trademark with prior use

Trademark distinctiveness in broad sense includes inherent distinctiveness (namely, originality) and external distinctiveness (namely, fame). The degree of legal protection of trademark depends on both the distinctiveness and fame. The trademark distinctiveness directly affects the evidentiary requirement of the first application requirement of the Bad Faith Filing Provision (fame of the trademark with prior use). First, in terms of the provision of trademark distinctiveness alone, Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Chinese Trademark Law provides for the inherent distinctiveness, Paragraph 2, Article 11 thereof provides for acquiring "secondary meaning" through external distinctiveness to meet the statutory requirements for the registration of a trademark. Fame of a trademark supplements its distinctiveness, and the lack of inherent distinctiveness can be reinforced by the fame acquired through use. Second, in terms of the provisions of rights conflict, if there is a relatively definite minimum standard and evidentiary requirement for fame of the trademark with prior use under the Bad Faith Filing Provision, then for trademarks with different levels of distinctiveness, evidentiary requirements concerning their fame should also be different. For the signs with very strong or relatively strong distinctiveness, the requirements of fame can be lowered accordingly. For the signs with less stronger distinctiveness but still in compliance with the legal requirements of trademark registration, the requirement of fame can be increased accordingly. For the signs lacking distinctiveness and not in compliance with the legal requirements of trademark registration (for example, the signs stipulated by Paragraph 1, Article 11 thereof), both of the following two requirements must be met: first, acquiring through use the "distinctive features" provided by Paragraph 2, Article 11 thereof, to the degree that the sign can be protected as a"trademark"; second, acquiring "certain fame" provided by Article 31 thereof through further use. In other words, not all the trademarks which lack distinctiveness or bear weaker distinctiveness cannot be protected by the Bad Faith Filing Provision, but the evidentiary requirements of fame shall definitely be increased correspondingly. The essence of the increase of evidentiary requirements is to make up for the part of lacking distinctiveness as a trademark of the sign so as to meet the standards prescribed by law.

For example, the first instance judgment of Beijing First Intermediate Court on the "Da Da Di in Chinese" case ruled that the opposed trademark designated on the services of sales promotion for others and etc. in Class 35 does not violate the Bad Faith Filing Provision under Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001. The important reason is that "Da Da Di in Chinese" has the specific meaning which is a market with high quality and inexpensive commodity in the eyes of the public masses, and there is no evidence showing that "Da Da Di in Chinese" has a close relationship with the opponent. Under such circumstance, the first-to-file principle under the Chinese Trademark Law plays a higher role than other principles of trademark use.3 From the aspect of the trademark distinctiveness and fame, if the opponent in the "Da Da Di in Chinese" case claims prior right over the trademark according to Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001, the opponent must prove that it had a close relationship with the trademark through prior use. Namely, the sign not only can serve to identify the source and be used as the opponent's trademark, but also enjoys certain fame as an unregistered trademark with prior use of the opponent.

From the aspect of system design, the dynamic balance between the trademark distinctiveness and fame reflects the choice among values and adjustment between public interest and individual interest, which is in compliance with the principle of interest balance of intellectual property rights, namely, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the individual, and opposing to the monopoly of public resources at the same time. The sign lacking distinctiveness belongs to the public resources of public domain, which shall not be monopolized by part of the individuals. It is possible that public resources could evolve to private rights monopolized by the specific party in the field of trademark. But the compulsory premise is that the specific party has made considerable investments on the basis of public resources and thus the corresponding return may be obtained. Namely, the sign lacking inherent distinctiveness may become a trademark with "secondary meaning," through use and such sign shall bear certain fame.

In addition, the dynamic balance between the trademark distinctiveness and fame also reflects the rationality of system design of the absolute grounds and relative grounds, which effectively defines the boundary of individual interests and public interests. On the one hand, the starting point and the objective results of the relative grounds are benefiting individual interests, detracting from the interests of others while directly increasing their own; the relative grounds create the exclusive and monopolistic individual rights, being the "investment" with returns for individual interests. Although the absolute grounds start at individual interests, and end at the objective results of benefiting the public and derogating the interests of others without directly increasing their own individual interests; the absolute grounds create the public rights which are shared by all the public and rule out any monopoly, being the "donation" without returns for individual interests. Therefore, as an interest-driven economic rational person, the relative grounds are undoubtedly the most optimal choice, while the absolute grounds are sub-optimal choice. On the other hand, the application of provisions of the absolute grounds takes precedence over that of the relative grounds, the choice between the relative grounds and the absolute grounds is not the total freedom without any limitation; it must be subject to the specific cases and legal facts. For example, the requirement of trademark with prior use and certain fame under the Bad Faith Filing Provision certainly includes the distinctiveness of the trademark. However, if it is a matter of fact of the case that the trademark bears weak distinctiveness or lacks distinctiveness, the burden of proof related to the trademark with prior use and certain fame will undoubtedly increase. It is the system design in nature of the prisoner's dilemma that urges the benefit-tending and harm-avoiding economic rational person to make rational choices in order to achieve the fairness of the law. From this aspect, the reason why the opposition for "Da Da Di in Chinese" failed is that the opponent has mistakenly chosen the relative ground of the Bad Faith Filing Provision. Since the trademark involved lacks distinctiveness and there is no sufficient evidence to support the fame of the trademark with prior use, it failed to meet the statutory requirements of Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001.

3. The trademark distinctiveness is an important consideration factor in determining the bad faith of the applicant of the disputed trademark

According to the Trademark Examination Standard jointly issued by the CTMO and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), when deciding the "unfair means" under Article 32 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2013, seven factors shall be taken into account. The sixth factor is that "the other's trademark bears strong originality."Rule 18 of the SPC Opinions on Several Issues concerning Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Granting and Determination of Trademark Rights (Fa Fa [2010] No.12, the SPC Judicial Opinions 2010) stipulates that if the applicant who knew or should have known the trademark with certain fame already used by another party preemptively registers the trademark, it shall be affirmed that the applicant has adopted unfair means. The problem is whether meeting the requirement of "knew or should have known" is necessarily deduce the conclusion of adopting "unfair means"? In the two typical trademark re-trial cases "Duck King in Chinese" and "Fu Mei Si in Chinese & FMS" in 2013, the SPC ruled that there are exceptions to the application of the Bad Faith Filing Provision under Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001, which has supplemented and completed the abovementioned SPC Judicial Opinions 2010 in the form of court decision.

In the "FU MEI SI in Chinese & FMS" case, the SPC ruled that generally, the trademark applicant knew or should have known the trademark with certain fame already used by the other party and preemptively registers said trademark, the intention of taking advantage of the goodwill of other's trademark could be inferred. However, it does not rule out special circumstances that although the prior trademark has certain influence, the trademark applicant does not have the bad faith to take advantage of the goodwill of prior trademark. The evidence submitted by the petitioner of disputed cancellation can prove that the petitioner was the major developer of the new products of "FU MEI SI in Chinese," and the predecessor of the registrant of disputed trademark only provided supplementary assistance. However, the predecessor of the registrant almost simultaneously commenced using the disputed trademark "FU MEI SI in Chinese & FMS," and its sales volume is greater than the petitioner of dispute cancellation prior to the application date of the disputed trademark. Prior to the application date of the disputed trademark, the petitioner of the dispute cancellation and the predecessor of the disputed trademark registrant sold simultaneously the goods bearing the trademark "FU MEI SI in Chinese & FMS" on the market, knowing the existence of each other, but without any specific agreement regarding attribution of the trademark. The Chinese Trademark Law adopts the first-to-file principle, therefore the application for registration of the disputed trademark filed by the registrant alone neither infringes the legitimate rights and interests of the petitioner of the dispute cancellation, nor violates the good faith principle, thus shall not be cancelled in accordance with Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001. The interpretation of the First Instance Court is correct that there is no need to apply Article 31 thereof in this case. Second Instance Court's decision was solely based on the fact that the petitioner of the dispute cancellation is the first entity to use the trademark, failing to take full account of application requirements of Article 31 thereof, therefore the law is wrongly applied.4

In one of the China Courts 2013 Top 10 Innovative IP Cases, "Duck King in Chinese" case, the SPC has made a groundbreaking interpretation on the relevancy between the trademark distinctiveness and whether the petition of the disputed trademark has the intention of free-riding on and invading the goodwill owned by others. The SPC ruled that the application for registration of the opposed trademark filed by Shanghai Huaihai Duck King Roast Duck Restaurant Co., Ltd. ("Shanghai Duck King") does not constitute "preemptive registration by unfair means." One of the reasons is that the word"Duck King in Chinese" bears weak distinctiveness. Specifically, the opponent Beijing Duck King Roast Duck Restaurant Co., Ltd. ("Beijing Duck King") had applied for trademark registration of "Duck King in Chinese" in Class 42, designated on restaurants and other services to the CTMO in 2000. The CTMO rejected the application for "directly indicating the content and feature of the service" in 2001, and Beijing Duck King did not apply for review. After that, Shanghai Duck King applied the opposed trademark which was rejected based on the same ground. However, Shanghai Duck King applied to the TRAB for review, submitted the evidence of use of the opposed trademark and obtained preliminary approval and publication. One of the reasons for the disapproval of Beijing Duck King's application is the different prior administrative procedures, but such disapproval also confirms that Shanghai Duck King's application for registration of the opposed trademark is not preemptive registration by unfair means.5

The Honorable judge at the SPC, Xiangjun KONG, takes the "Duck King in Chinese" case as an example to comment the Bad Faith Filing Provision under the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 and the abovementioned SPC Judicial Opinions 2010, and sums up a judgment method of two factors (namely, "knowing" standard and "free riding on goodwill" standard): "knowing" is a factor in determining subjective bad faith, but the bad faith of the trademark applicant / registrant cannot be necessarily concluded only through the "knowing." The standard of two factors of "knowing" standard (knew or should have known) and "free riding on goodwill" standard (with intention of free riding on and invading others' goodwill) should be deemed as the standard to determine the bad faith of the trademark applicant / registrant. According to the Honorable Judge Xiangjun KONG, when discussing the meaning of "unfair means" several years ago, the TRAB seemed to have proposed the two factors standard, but based on other considerations and the fact that there was no actual example of special circumstances at that time, the abovementioned SPC Judicial Opinions 2010 simply explained the "unfair means" under the Article 31 of the Chinese Trademark Law 2001 as "knew or should have known," without further requirement of the intention of free-riding on and invading other's goodwill. This problem was brought out or revealed by the "Duck King in Chinese" case because of its peculiarities. "It is the 'knowing' standard that was adopted in the decisions of the first and second instance courts" of the "Duck King in Chinese" case, and this case "might be a typical case which needs to assess the bad faith in respect of two factors. Obviously the TRAB adopted the judgment method of two factors, and the SPC retrial decision seems to have this preference. "6

Theoretically, the degree of trademark distinctiveness reflects the boundaries between individual interests / rights and the public interests / resources. Meanwhile, trademark distinctiveness also reflects the goodwill bore by the individual interests and individual rights. One of the underlying logic of regarding trademark distinctiveness as an important consideration factor to determine the bad faith of the applicant of the disputed trademark is the relevancy between the trademark distinctiveness and whether the applicant of disputed trademark has the intention of free-riding on or invading the goodwill of others. For the trademark of very strong or relatively strong distinctiveness, it is unlikely to reasonably explain the coincidence between the disputed trademark and the trademark with prior use. Based on this, a reasonable conclusion could be inferred that, it is hard for the applicant of disputed trademark to come up with such trademark unless it is deliberately imitated, thus the intention of applicant to invade the goodwill of others could be affirmed. For the trademark of weaker distinctiveness which can be more easily associated through intellectual activity with reasonable efforts, then, the possibility that the applicant has the intention to invade the goodwill of others is greatly lowered. As the trademark lacking distinctiveness belongs to public resources in the public domain, which is known by the public and available for the public, it is unfair to determine the applicant of the disputed trademark has the intention to invade the goodwill of others.

* This article is the English translation for Mr. Wang's article in Chinese published on China Trademark magazine (Issue 8, 2014). 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).

Footnotes

1 Beijing High Court Administrative Judgment (2006) Gao Xing Zhong Zi No. 94

2 Beijing First Intermediate Court Administrative Judgment(2010)Yi Zhong Zhi Xing Chu Zi No. 2192

3 Beijing First Intermediate Court Administrative Judgment(2010)Yi Zhong Zhi Xing Chu Zi No. 2974

4 The Supreme People's Court Administrative Judgment(2013)Xing Ti Zi No. 11

5 The Supreme People's Court Administrative Order(2012)Zhi Xing Zi No. 9

6 Xiangjun KONG, New Thinking on Intellectual Property Protection - IP Judicial Frontier Issues, China Legal Publishing House (2013), pp. 206-210

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
HFG Law & Intellectual Property
 
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
HFG Law & Intellectual Property
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