Case Number: TSI 327/2014

Date of Judgment: 6 November, 2014

The Court of Appeal confirmed the First Instance Court’s decision to cancel the registration of the Trade Name X for being confusable with the notable Trademark Y (previously registered), even though there is no direct affinity between the commercial activity developed by the holder of Trade Name X and the products and services identified by the Trademark Y.

Pursuant to Section 16, paragraphs 2 and 6, of the Commercial Code, the Court firstly decided that the affinity between commercial activities is only one of the relevant considerations for the judgment on the risk of confusion between commercial signs; secondly, that the judgment in respect of the risk of confusion should also take into consideration similar registered trademarks able to mislead in respect of its ownership; thirdly, that the Industrial Property Law, Section 222, paragraph 1, provides for the cancelation of the Trade Names while confusable with any previously registered trademark.

The Court also concluded that the principle of complete novelty also necessarily implies distinction between the commercial signs with different functions in order to prevent any wrong perception of consumers.

http://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-547e98d3110cf.pdf

Case Number: TSI 409/2014

Date of Judgment: 30 October, 2014

According to Section 199, Paragraph 1 (b), of the Industrial Property Law(RJPI), the Court of Appeal (TSI) confirmed the decision given by the Court of First Instance (TJB) which had rejected the application for the registration of Trademark X, merely composed of descriptive designations and with exclusive indication of the place, services and products relating to the Exhibition Industry in general.

The Court ruled that trademarks without distinctive features are prima facie non-registrable, with the exception of those which have acquired distinctiveness through “secondary meaning”.

http://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-54ab975dc72df.pdf

On the 10th of April 2014, the Second Instance Court (proceedings no. 27/2014) sustained the First Instance Court´s decision banning the appellant from driving for four months, due to the fact he had (repeatedly) exceeded speed limits.

The appellant claimed his professional driver status in order to achieve the suspension of such penalty.

However, the Second Instance Court rejected the appeal considering that the professional driver status of the appellant did not constitute an acceptable cause for suspension of the penalty, having also in consideration the driver’s record of repeated violations to the speed limits.

http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2013/42/ordem64_cn.asp#64

By the Award granted on the 9th April 2014 in proceedings number 13/2014, the Court of Final Appeal has determined that violating the Macau SAR Tax Law brings the annulment of authorization of temporary residence in the Territory.

Purchasing a real estate property is a presupposition for approving residency in Macau. However, failing to comply with the tax law brings the annulment of temporary residence in Macau SAR, i.e., evading the property transfer tax through the submission of a false sale and purchase contract and deed of a lower purchase price shall be relevant to evaluate the applicant’s character and the will for complying the law in the long–term statement of the Territory.

Considering the non-compliance of tax law, the Court terminated the residency permit in Macau SAR.

http://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-53590d0173203.pdf

http://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/zh-53590d0173203.pdf

Case Number: TUI 34/2013

Date of Judgment: 13 November, 2013

In 18th January 2006, the unanimous jurisprudence of the Last Instance Court no. 23/2005 stated that the civil liability for acts or omissions in the provision of health care in public facilities is non-contractual.

An act can lead to both contractual and non-contractual liability. Non-Contractual Liability is based on a breach of the general duties of abstention, corresponding to absolute rights such as the right to life or the right to physical integrity, while the Contractual Liability derives from breach of the obligation about proper duties.

The liability for acts or omissions in providing health care by private entities, freely according to the patient, has non-contractual or contractual nature. Therefore, the injured party can sue the doctor or private hospital based on contractual or non-contractual liability.

http://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-52ccf777df715.pdf

http://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/zh-52ccf777df715.pdf