VietNamNet Bridge – Regarding the case in which Vietnamese Saigon Beer Alcohol Beverage (SABECO) faces the risk of being swallowed by the Singaporean partner, SABECO’s Marketing Director Le Hong Xanh has told VietNamNet that SABECO has requested the Singaporean partner to change the name of the company in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Who to blame on SABECO brand case?
SABECO is a Singaporean brand?
The Singaporean partner has agreed to change name
Who to blame on SABECO brand case?
SABECO is a Singaporean brand?
The Singaporean partner has agreed to change name
When talking with VietNamNet’s Vietnam Economic Forum, Xanh has informed that SABECO has asked the Singaporean partner, SABECO ASIA PACIFIC, to change its name in order to avoid misunderstanding and settle the case.
“And the partner has changed its name already,” Xanh said.
When asked about the new name of the partner, Xanh said he does not know the new name of the company..
When VietNamNet’s reporters asked what SABECO explained to their Singaporean partner when requesting they change their name from SABECO ASIA PACIFIC, Xanh did not give answer and requested the reporters contact Mr Hoa, the Administration and Legal Director of SABECO.. However VietNamNet’s reporters could not contact Mr Hoa on November 30, because he did not pick up the phone or return any phone calls.
Xanh has also confirmed that to date, SABECO has completed the registration for its trademark and protection for it company’s name in Singapore.
However, according to Xanh, the registration for protection of the company’s was only submitted “some one or two months ago, while the registration for trademark protection was completed “a long time ago”. When asked how long is “a long time ago”, Xanh said “several years ago”.
In fact, the plan to register for trademark protection (the logo with the dragon image and four trademarks of four products – Saigon Lager, Saigon Export, Saigon Special and 333 can) in six countries (Singapore, India, Cambodia, Myanmar, China and Madrid in Spain) was only submitted by SABECO’s marketing division to the general director on April 1, 2010.
According to Xanh, the registration for the protection of the company’s name was wrapped up 1-2 months ago. However, that is still too late if compared with the contract signed with SABECO ASIA PACIFIC (the contract was signed on December 11, 2009). However, better late than never.
When asked: “At the time when SABECO intended to sign a valuable long-term contract with SABECO ASIA PACIFIC, why did SABECO not register for the trademark and company’s name protection in order to avoid such troubles?”, Xanh, once again, declined to give answer, asking the reporters to contact Mr Hoa.
Again, Mr. Hoa still did not answer the phone.
Many deadly problems occurred
A lawyer in Hanoi who has substantial experience with intellectual property cases told VietNamNet that if there are no other agreements except the business contract, it is clear that SABECO, the holding company, and SATRACO, the subsidiary, were negligent when signing such a valuable contract with SABECO ASIA PACIFIC.
The lawyer identified some “loopholes” after reading the principle contract No 01EXC/SATRACO-AP dated December 11, 2009 signed between SATRACO and SABECO ASIA PACIFIC. He said that the shortcomings in the provisions of the contract may allow the Singaporean partner to exploit the loopholes and spontaneously use the brand name.
Doubts have been raised if the Singaporean partner has actually changed its name.
“I think Vietnamese SABECO can ask the partner to change its stamp, but it will be difficult to ask the partner to change its name, because SABECO ASIA PACIFIC registered its name in Singapore and it does not violate any laws. At the time when SABECO ASIA PACIFIC registered its name in Singapore, the name “SABECO” was not protected in the country,” the lawyer said. “I still cannot tell fact from fiction in this case,” he added.
“And the partner has changed its name already,” Xanh said.
When asked about the new name of the partner, Xanh said he does not know the new name of the company..
When VietNamNet’s reporters asked what SABECO explained to their Singaporean partner when requesting they change their name from SABECO ASIA PACIFIC, Xanh did not give answer and requested the reporters contact Mr Hoa, the Administration and Legal Director of SABECO.. However VietNamNet’s reporters could not contact Mr Hoa on November 30, because he did not pick up the phone or return any phone calls.
Xanh has also confirmed that to date, SABECO has completed the registration for its trademark and protection for it company’s name in Singapore.
However, according to Xanh, the registration for protection of the company’s was only submitted “some one or two months ago, while the registration for trademark protection was completed “a long time ago”. When asked how long is “a long time ago”, Xanh said “several years ago”.
In fact, the plan to register for trademark protection (the logo with the dragon image and four trademarks of four products – Saigon Lager, Saigon Export, Saigon Special and 333 can) in six countries (Singapore, India, Cambodia, Myanmar, China and Madrid in Spain) was only submitted by SABECO’s marketing division to the general director on April 1, 2010.
According to Xanh, the registration for the protection of the company’s name was wrapped up 1-2 months ago. However, that is still too late if compared with the contract signed with SABECO ASIA PACIFIC (the contract was signed on December 11, 2009). However, better late than never.
When asked: “At the time when SABECO intended to sign a valuable long-term contract with SABECO ASIA PACIFIC, why did SABECO not register for the trademark and company’s name protection in order to avoid such troubles?”, Xanh, once again, declined to give answer, asking the reporters to contact Mr Hoa.
Again, Mr. Hoa still did not answer the phone.
Many deadly problems occurred
A lawyer in Hanoi who has substantial experience with intellectual property cases told VietNamNet that if there are no other agreements except the business contract, it is clear that SABECO, the holding company, and SATRACO, the subsidiary, were negligent when signing such a valuable contract with SABECO ASIA PACIFIC.
The lawyer identified some “loopholes” after reading the principle contract No 01EXC/SATRACO-AP dated December 11, 2009 signed between SATRACO and SABECO ASIA PACIFIC. He said that the shortcomings in the provisions of the contract may allow the Singaporean partner to exploit the loopholes and spontaneously use the brand name.
Doubts have been raised if the Singaporean partner has actually changed its name.
“I think Vietnamese SABECO can ask the partner to change its stamp, but it will be difficult to ask the partner to change its name, because SABECO ASIA PACIFIC registered its name in Singapore and it does not violate any laws. At the time when SABECO ASIA PACIFIC registered its name in Singapore, the name “SABECO” was not protected in the country,” the lawyer said. “I still cannot tell fact from fiction in this case,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment