Negligence Liability for Cargo Damage During Carrier Control
The following is a translation and repair of the legal article for an English-language website: Company High-Sho Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells high-quality pens and pen refills from France, using the trademark High-Sho, which is registered in Thailand and China. If 1) Loso Co., Ltd. purchases genuine High-Sho pens from a distributor in Italy, or 2) Loso Co., Ltd. manufactures refills for High-Sho pens, sold under the trademark Used with High-Sho Pens and Manufactured and Sold by Loso Co., Ltd., then the following must be determined: Is Loso Co., Ltd. s actions in these two cases a violation of High-Sho Co., Ltd. s trademark rights? This is based on the Trademark Act B.E. 2534, Section 44 and other relevant sections. The purpose of using trademarks, as outlined in these sections, is to differentiate goods from those of others and to identify goods as belonging to the trademark owner, which benefits the trademark owner in their commercial activities. Therefore, when Loso Co., Ltd. purchased genuine High-Sho pens from an Italian distributor, High-Sho Co., Ltd. had the sole right to use the trademark on its products for the purpose of sales. High-Sho Co., Ltd. benefited from the use of the trademark through the selling price of the finished goods, so it had no right to prevent Loso Co., Ltd. from purchasing pens for commercial purposes and selling them with the trademark. Consequently, Loso Co., Ltd. s actions in this regard constituted a violation of High-Sho Co., Ltd. s trademark rights. (5 points) (b) High-Sho Co., Ltd. had registered the trademark High-Sho for pen refills in the Kingdom of Thailand, but Loso Co., Ltd. was not using the trademark. This did not constitute a violation of Section 108 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534, which deals with the falsification or sale of counterfeit goods. Loso Co., Ltd. publicly indicated that the refills were for High-Sho pens, which did not constitute making a false representation in the goods to mislead the public into believing they were products of another company, as stipulated in the Criminal Code, Section 272. (5 points) Siam Smile Co., Ltd., a major Thai-style ready-to-eat food manufacturer in Thailand, ordered 10 industrial ovens from U.S. Equipment Co. of the United States for $10,000, packaged in one container, and shipped in a single container. U.S. Marine Co., Ltd. was contracted by Food Equipment Co. to transport the goods, with the vessel departing from the Port of San Francisco, United States, on April 4, 2048. Subsequently, on April 4, 2048, Siam Smile Co., Ltd. insured the goods with Thai Sea Insurance Co., Ltd., the port of destination, on May 2048. The vessel encountered a problem and was unable to load the container. The ship s crew hired a barge from the Royal Thai Customs Department to load the goods from the vessel, providing evidence of payment to the crew, who were acting as agents of the Royal Thai Customs Department. The barge was used to transport the container to the port area as agreed with the crew. A cable snapped, causing the container to crash into the port area, damaging three ovens. Thai Sea Insurance Co., Ltd. compensated Siam Smile Co., Ltd., the insured and the marine insurance beneficiary. Then, Thai Sea Insurance Co., Ltd. sued U.S. Marine Co., Ltd., the carrier, but U.S. Marine Co., Ltd. refused to pay, claiming that the marine insurance contract had no legal basis because it was not executed before the vessel left its port of origin. Furthermore, the damage occurred due to the negligence of the Royal Thai Customs Department officials and the barge operator, not due to the negligence of U.S. Marine Co., Ltd. Therefore, U.S. Marine Co., Ltd. was not liable for the damage. The damages to the goods arose from the negligence of the Company, of Representative, and Reen Limited, and therefore, the Company is not liable for such damages. This is also the case because of Section 39, Paragraph 2, and Section of the Merchant Shipping Act B.E. 2534, which stipulates that goods still under the control of the carrier shall remain so until delivered to the authority of the Royal Thai Customs Department. Furthermore, the Company contracted with the Royal Thai Steamship Public Company Limited to lease a barge for the transport of goods from the vessel. This indicates that the responsibility for the transport of goods rests with the carrier. The functions of the Royal Thai Customs Department in this instance constitute acting as an agent and representative of the carrier, and as a result, damages occurred while the goods were being unloaded from the vessel, this constitutes a claim arising during the period that the goods were under the control of U.S. Marine Limited, the carrier, due to the negligence of the crane operator, who is a representative of the carrier. This does not fall under the exemption of U.S. Marine Limited as provided in Section 52 (13) of the Merchant Shipping Act B.E. 2534. Therefore, the Company is liable for the damage to the goods. The matter is situated within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Public Prosecutor.