The Hong Kong Trade Mark Registry has revised its Work Manual to take into account the National Security Law, dealing with when marks will be refused for being against principles of morality (S.11(4)(a)) or where use is prohibited by any law (S.11(5)(a)). Please see attached mark up issued by the Registry.
For the latter the guidance is relatively simple. A mark will not be registered if it is
“a mark the use of which constitutes an offence under The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and/or the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (Instrument A305)”
The question here will be deciding what is an offence under the NSL or NSO – not always easy.
For principles of morality, the manual is more detailed:
“Marks that are regarded as contrary to accepted principles of morality include marks containing, in whole or in part, any sign that:
? may be contrary to the interests of national security, sovereignty, unity, reputation or territorial integrity; public security or order; and personal safety, notably through transmitting, inciting or trivializing an illegal activity;
? is, either explicitly or by insinuation, associated or connected with an offensive, indecent or outrageous meaning, conduct or activity, e.g. a sign that incites hatred or otherwise transmits an insulting/degrading/disparagin
? is, without authorization, identical to or resemble individual names/emblems/landmarks of government leadership, authorities or agencies (including those of the Central People’s Government); or
? contains references to or is associated/connected with any well-known tragedy or otherwise shocking/disturbing event, as likely to be considered amongst a section of the public as offensive through commercialization.”
These are very broad constraints which could be applied to numerous marks. The 1st item is clear directed to the NSL, but much broader than being an offence. The test is simply if the sign may be contrary to the interests of national security.
The types of marks that may be caught by this would be any reference to June 4, such as 8964 (or even 64) and Popo (the term for police used by protestors which is considered offensive in Hong Kong – even though its roots in America are in fact a relatively gentle term for the police.).
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have found mark “King Mao” registered by a Mainland Chinese companies. It could be argued this is contrary to public morality.
