Case Details

• NAIVS
• 0 Comments

The Trademark and Packaging Decoration Patent Dispute between 'Wong Lo Kat' and 'JDB': Inspirations from the Intellectual Property Game

In the field of intellectual property, the long-standing and highly publicized trademark and packaging decoration patent dispute between "Wong Lo Kat" and "JDB" is a classic case. It has not only attracted widespread attention from all sectors of society but also brought profound inspirations for numerous enterprises in terms of intellectual property protection and market competition.

Case Background

Wong Lo Kat herbal tea has a long history and was originally an old and established brand under Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited. In 1997, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited authorized the Wong Lo Kat trademark to be used by the parent company of JDB, Hutchison Whampoa Group, with the license period expiring in 2010. Under the operation and marketing efforts of JDB, Wong Lo Kat herbal tea quickly gained popularity across the country and even globally with precise market positioning and large-scale advertising campaigns. Its sales soared, making it a household name in the herbal tea market.

However, as the expiration of the authorization period approached, differences emerged between Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Hutchison Whampoa Group regarding the trademark renewal. Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited intended to take back the trademark for its own operation, while Hutchison Whampoa Group hoped to continue using the trademark to maintain its market advantage. After several fruitless negotiations, the conflicts between the two sides gradually escalated and finally led to legal proceedings.

Focus of Patent Dispute

Besides the core issue of trademark ownership, the patent dispute over packaging decoration was also a key aspect of the case. During the long-term operation of the Wong Lo Kat brand by JDB, the red can packaging decoration it used had become deeply rooted in people's minds and had extremely high market recognition and commercial value. This packaging decoration was not just a simple design; it carried important elements in aspects such as brand image and consumer perception. Moreover, JDB had carried out a series of patent applications and layout around it.

Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited believed that the red can packaging decoration was part of the overall image of the Wong Lo Kat brand. Since it was taking back the trademark, the rights and interests related to the closely associated packaging decoration should also belong to it. JDB emphasized that it had made tremendous efforts in promoting the packaging decoration, investing in it, and creating its unique market influence, and thus had the legitimate rights and interests to continue using it. The two sides engaged in intense legal debates on issues such as whether the packaging decoration constituted patent infringement, prior use rights, and the ownership of related rights and interests.

Litigation Process and Results

This dispute went through a long and complicated judicial process, involving trials at multiple levels of courts. Based on different laws and regulations, factual bases, and understandings of relevant intellectual property concepts, the courts at different levels made judgments at different stages.

In some key judgments, the courts determined that the ownership of the rights and interests of the packaging decoration needed to be considered comprehensively from multiple aspects, including the historical origin of the brand, the market investment of both sides, and consumer perception. Eventually, after multiple rounds of confrontation, the courts ruled that Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited had the corresponding rights and interests in the Wong Lo Kat trademark and the associated packaging decoration. At the same time, the courts also recognized the contributions made by JDB in aspects such as early market promotion and its right to continue using it under certain reasonable circumstances, to some extent balancing the interest demands of both sides.

Case Inspirations

For enterprises, this case has brought important inspirations in multiple aspects. Firstly, in terms of intellectual property cooperation, enterprises must sign rigorous, clear, and forward-looking authorization agreements, clearly defining the rights and obligations of each party regarding intellectual property elements such as trademarks, patents, and packaging decoration to avoid disputes arising from unclear agreements in the future. For example, key clauses such as the authorization period, scope of use, and changes in rights