Taiwan: Accelerated trade mark dispute examination
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Taiwan: Accelerated trade mark dispute examination

According to Article 49.2 of the Trade Mark Act, in a trade mark dispute, such as an opposition, invalidation or non-use cancellation action, the IP Office is required to serve a copy of the brief/counterstatement filed by each party on the other party for a response. Under such procedure, the parties can alternately submit observations. It is only when the procedure comes to an end that the IP Office will start examining the case and render a decision.

However, if the observations filed by the parties are repetitive and the facts in the case are clear, allowing the parties to continue filing observations alternately will unavoidably delay the proceeding. The IP Office thus promulgated the Notice on Trademark Dispute Examination Procedure on September 1 2015 as a guideline to accelerate the examination process.

Key points of the Notice are:

1) Where the observations submitted by either party are substantially the same as those filed or the issues involved have been addressed by both parties, the procedure of allowing the parties to alternately submit observations shall stop. If the evidence of use submitted by either party is found to be fabricated, the procedure can be discontinued on a case-by-case principle, so as not to delay the proceeding.

2) If a suspension of the proceeding is requested due to the need to negotiate, it should be ensured that the request is not a one-sided request. The two parties should specify the period of suspension requested while the Registrar should suspend the proceeding for a reasonable amount of time depending on the circumstances surrounding the case.

3) If a further suspension is requested on the ground that negotiations between the parties are ongoing or additional evidential materials cannot be timely submitted, the Registrar should consider whether the request is justified and whether the parties have been given sufficient time and may reject the request if further suspension will delay the proceeding.

4) Unless there are justified reasons for granting suspension(s), to effectively control the overall examination time, the Registrar should render a decision within two months for opposition and non-use cancellation cases, and within three months for invalidation cases, after the procedure of filing of observations by the parties is terminated.

liu.jpg

Amanda YS Liu


Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices7th Floor, No. 248, Section 3Nanking East RoadTaipei 105-45, Taiwan, ROCTel: +886 2 2775 1823Fax: +886 2 2731 6377siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.twwww.saint-island.com.tw

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partners at Fenwick explain why they had to be aggressive when helping Lashify win a patent infringement trial
Big law firms are reorganising their IP departments in response to changing client needs and new legal challenges
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Louis-Pierre Gravelle discusses why he didn’t want to be part of the newly acquired Bereskin & Parr and the opportunities he’s eyeing at his new home, Dipchand
Sources say greater transparency would help them draft better briefs, and debate whether the UPC has struck the right balance
Rouse and IPH’s latest acquisition sprees show they are abandoning Asia for markets in Europe and Canada
Vince Shier and Ryan Smith, who recently joined Brown Rudnick, say their new firm offers a strong platform to provide strategic advice
Innovation and expertise will be showcased again in Munich in November at the fourteenth edition of IP Service World as the future of intellectual property management comes under the spotlight
John O’Shea has left IPH after six years as the company seeks to streamline its Asia-Pacific and Canada businesses
Elham Dehbozorgi explains why she took on the newly created role and why conflict checks can be complex for IP firms
Gift this article