A Tattoo too Easily Erased? LVMH Successfully Defends Suit against its Use of DIOR ADDICT LIP TATTOO

by Teo Bong Kwang and Eugene Ee

In Shizens Cosmetic Marketing (M) Sdn Bhd v LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics (M) Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No WA-24IP-21-11/2017), the local company of luxury goods producer LVMH was faced with a trademark infringement suit in respect of its line of products known as “Dior Addict Lip Tattoo” in Malaysia. However, the fame and strength of its DIOR mark helped LVMH to ward off the action brought against it.

Background

Shizens’s Lip Tattoo Lipstick

Shizens, a local cosmetics manufacturer, is the registered proprietor of the LIP TATTOO mark in Class 3 for, among others, cosmetics, make-up preparations and lipsticks. Shizens instituted proceedings against the local chapter of LVMH on the basis that LVMH’s use of the DIOR ADDICT LIP TATTOO mark infringed its LIP TATTOO mark. LVMH launched a counterclaim to remove the LIP TATTOO mark from the Register of Trademarks on the grounds that the words ‘lip tattoo’ were, among other things, not invented words, which is a ground for removal.

High Court decision

The Intellectual Property High Court of Kuala Lumpur disagreed with LMVH’s contention that the LIP TATTOO mark had been wrongly registered. It held, among other things, that the words ‘lip tattoo’ are newly coined words, which are not generic and are not commonly used words that have no obvious meaning until a meaning is assigned to them. In the circumstances, the LIP TATTOO mark could not be removed from the register as it consisted of “invented words” within the meaning of Section 10(1)(c) of the Trademarks Act.

LVMH’s Dior Addict Lip Tattoo Lipstick

However, Shizens’ success in resisting LVMH’s application for removal or expungement was meaningless as the court did not rule in its favour on the issue of trademark infringement. In essence, the court did not agree with Shinzens that there was a likelihood of confusion between LVMH’s mark and the LIP TATTOO mark. The court took the following stand on the issue of the likelihood of confusion between the marks:

  • The presence of the identical word ‘lip’ in the competing marks was inconsequential given that the registration of the LIP TATTOO mark was subject to a disclaimer whereby the registration did not give any right to the exclusive use of the word ‘lip’;
  • The LVMH products, including the Dior Addict Lip Tattoo products, have a relatively better reputation than the Shizens products;
  • The competing marks are phonetically and visually different;
  • The Shizens and LVMH products are sold via different trade channels, in that the latter’s products are sold in boutique outlets in leading department stores, while the former’s products are sold at ‘Shizens’ counters; and
  • Consumers of cosmetic products are generally better informed and more discerning.

Further, it was held that LVMH did not use the words ‘lip tattoo’ as a trademark. Instead, the word or mark DIOR was found to be the indicator of origin of LVMH’s products, including the Dior Addict Lip Tattoo products.

Comment

One of the central issues in this case was what constitutes trademark use. The court held that LVMH’s use of the words ‘lip tattoo’ does not amount to use as a trademark, as the words are prefixed by LVMH’s famous DIOR house mark. This reasoning seems wanting since ‘lip tattoo’, being a non-descriptive and non-generic word element, has no other apparent signification apart from the name of a product marketed by LVMH. This seems to contradict the court’s earlier pronouncement that the words ‘lip tattoo’ are invented words which are therefore capable of being registered as a trademark.

Further, it appears that the court placed great emphasis on the finding that the LVMH brand or products are relatively more famous than Shizens’ and that LVMH’s DIOR mark will distinguish it from Shizens’ LIP TATTOO mark. This seems to be a departure from the well-established principle laid down in Saville Perfumery Ld v June Perfect Ld ([1941] RPC 147), where it was held that, once a mark has been shown to offend, the infringer cannot escape liability by showing that something outside the actual mark distinguishes the infringing goods from those of the registered proprietor.

 

 

一生与圣书为伍

文:张文光

已故许牧世长老(教授)是我相当喜欢的一位基督教作家,他是华人基督教文字工作者的前辈。上个世纪80年代读大学的时候,就接触他的作品。当时觉得他的文章,遣词用字较一般基督教作家来得有文学韵味,内容也清楚扎实。也记得他大力鼓励牧者将讲章写出来,当注意文字,修辞的表达等,让讲章成为美丽的篇章。他个人也奉行这个原则,把一篇篇的讲章写出来,并结集出版。上个月晨砚来了封电邮,叫我在《牧羊人》版开个专栏。我想了想,也翻看书柜内的书,想找点灵感,刚好看到许教授的书《人世与天国之间》,觉得还蛮适合的,就做了一点更动,将“天国” 放在前面,成了栏名。

 

这几天再把这本书拿来翻阅,也在网上查看了许牧世的一些资料,才惊觉《人世与天国之间》是他87岁高龄时出版的最后一本书。许牧世长老1914年出生于福建鼓浪屿。1939年至1945年,日军占领厦门时,许牧世逃离,来到槟城的钟灵中学任教。想不到许教授跟马来西亚还有这段渊源。可惜在他的作品中,多是谈他在美国波斯顿,香港,台湾的生活,而对年少在南洋的日子没有什么记载。1947年他来到美国读书。根据他自己的说法,是想学新闻学,以备将来在报界工作,尤其想当一名国内大报驻美国的通讯记者。当时他认识了著名作家萧乾,因着萧乾的关系,开始替香港的大公报写点稿。

1950年夏天,许牧世毕业于密苏里(Missouri University)大学新闻系,但毕业后前途茫茫。一年后前金陵大学英文系主任章文新博士(Dr Francis P. Jones)向金陵神学院的管理层建议拨出一部分原本计划用来发展中国神学教育的基金,从事翻译基督教历代名著的工作。这个建议蒙金陵神学院接纳,于是章文新博士在新泽西的哲吾大学(Drew University)设办事处,开始这项负有历史意义的工作。当时章博士亟需一位中国人的助手,于是找到许牧世。从此许牧世就与这个翻译的巨大工程难分难舍,将10年的青春投入之内。在他离开这个工作的时候,已经翻译出版了约二十多本的基督教名著。这一套精装本,封面有者红色,有着蓝色的中文翻译作品,收录的尽是基督教神学家的扛鼎之作,如加尔文的《基督教要义》,卫斯理的《约翰卫斯理日记》,马丁路德的《路德选集》,尼布尔的《人的本性与命运》等,到现在仍然在印刷中,影响了几代的华人基督徒。

许牧世一生奉献给中国人的文字工作,从事“编,译,教,传”的工作。1965年当他51岁时,在台北创办了一份相当有分量的《基督教论坛报》,53岁时,赴香港担任基督教文艺出版社的总编辑,晚年参与翻译《现代中文译本》圣经的工作。笔耕不断,到了七八十岁仍有新书出版,一生著作等身。我个人相当羡慕他,觉得倘若自己也能一生做像他一样的工作,则不枉这生也。

许牧世一生与书为伍,而其中一本关系密切,影响他一生命途的书,肯定是《圣经》。他自己说世界上书多的无法计算。但是这些书都是出自人,无非是一些人的想法,难免有人的限制。唯独《圣经》这部书能够告诉我们灵界的奥秘,因为这本书的源头是神。他最后一篇的讲章就用了这个题目:《天父给人的家书》,来形容《圣经》。可惜许牧世在写完这篇讲章后,隔一天就蒙主恩召了。

幸好,他的讲章流传了下来 (收录在他最后一本书《人世与天国之间》),而《圣经》也永远长存。我们只要打开许牧世的书,同时也打开《圣经》,相信就能明白为什么他一生与《圣经》,与基督教名著朝夕以对,而毫不言倦 。

注:本文首次发表于《南洋商报》eNanyang 《牧羊人》版,2019年4月28日刊。