Taiwan

Trademark

Trademark

According to Article 23 I (13) of the Trademark Act, a trademark application shall be rejected if the proposed trademark is identical or similar to a registered trademark or a proposed trademark of a preceding application that is designated for use on identical or similar goods or services thereof and hence likely to cause confusion […]

The Prescription for a Patentee to Claim for Damages

The Prescription for a Patentee to Claim for Damages

According to Paragraph 1 of Article 197 of the Civil Code in Taiwan, the claim for the injury arising from a wrongful act shall be extinguished by prescription, if not exercised within two years from the date when the injury and the person bound to make compensation became known to the injured person. The same […]

Taiwan and Japan to Start PPH Pilot Program May 1

Taiwan and Japan to Start PPH Pilot Program May 1

Following the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot program with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, TIPO will begin a similar pilot program with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on May 1. This is a milestone in patent cooperation and exchange between Taiwan and Japan since the signing of the Arrangement for the Mutual Cooperation […]

The TIPO published an advance announcement of the draft of “Regulations for Governing the Foreign Language Documents” on May 17, 2012.

The TIPO published an advance announcement of the draft of “Regulations for Governing the Foreign Language Documents” on May 17, 2012.

According to Article 145 of the draft amendment to the Patent Act passed by the Legislative Yuan on November 29, 2011, the competent authority shall promulgate regulations governing the limitation of the foreign language documents submitted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Article 25, Paragraph 3 of Article 106, and Paragraph 3 of Article 125. […]

Brief Introduction to Key Points of the Amendment to the Trademark Act in Taiwan

Brief Introduction to Key Points of the Amendment to the Trademark Act in Taiwan

1. Motives and Timeline of the Amendment Under the rapid development of industries and businesses and vigorous and diverse changes in the models of business and trading of recent years, many provisions of the Trademark Act 2003 (hereinafter, “the Act”) are insufficient for practical application. Furthermore, provisions pertaining to trademark infringement also give rise to […]

The TW-Support Using The PPH Agreement (TW-SUPA) And The Related Official Fee Were Effective As Of March 1, 2012

The TW-Support Using The PPH Agreement (TW-SUPA) And The Related Official Fee Were Effective As Of March 1, 2012

As announced by the TIPO on March 3, 2012, the TW-Support Using the PPH Agreement (TW-SUPA) was effective on March 1, 2012 and the related official fee is NT$4,000 (about US$140). The amended regulation of the official fee was also effective as of March 1, 2012. The PPH pilot program between the Taiwan Intellectual Property […]

The New Trademark Act Will Be Enforced on July 1, 2012

The New Trademark Act Will Be Enforced on July 1, 2012

According to the News announced by the TIPO on March 27, 2012, the new Trademark Act will be enforced on July 1, 2012 as prescribed by the Executive Yuan. For more details about the new Trademark Act, please refer to our Newsletter issued in February 2012. We will be pleased to provide you with the […]

How a creator proves the true ownership of his/her copyright?

How a creator proves the true ownership of his/her copyright?

Taiwan became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 2002. Under the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), member countries are obligated to protect works of the nationals of other members. Therefore, if the client is a citizen of the WTO members, their works are entitled to […]

Whether keyword advertising constitutes infringement or not?

Whether keyword advertising constitutes infringement or not?

We learnt recently that the legal opinions about whether “keyword advertising” constitutes infringement between the Fair Trade Commission and the Intellectual Property Court in Taiwan are different. The Fair Trade Commission follows the Fair Trade Law and focuses on whether the “keyword advertising” constitutes unfair competition or infringements of commercial goodwill by using other’s marks […]

It is not a “reasonable excuse” of non-use for a trademark by the reason that a trademark has been involving in pending opposition proceedings for years

It is not a “reasonable excuse” of non-use for a trademark by the reason that a trademark has been involving in pending opposition proceedings for years

The following trademark was opposed by a third party during its publication period in 2006 and the final official decision has not yet been issued until now. During the opposition proceedings, the opponent further filed a Cancellation application against the above trademark by the ground of non-use for three years since its publication date according […]

Taiwan Legislative Yuan passed the draft amendment to the Patent Act

Taiwan Legislative Yuan passed the draft amendment to the Patent Act

It has been over eight years since the Patent Act was last amended in February 2003. On November 29, 2011, the Legislative Yuan passed the draft amendment to the Patent Act proposed by the Executive Yuan. It is estimated this Act will come into force in one year after its promulgation by the President. The […]

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

The PPH program between TIPO and USPTO launched on September 1, 2011 for a trial period of one year. Applicants of invention patents that are first filed with USPTO and later filed with TIPO claiming priority to corresponding US applications and have requested for Substantive examination but the TIPO has not issued the first examination […]

The Intellectual Property Court will not take into account any new evidence supplemented by the TIPO at the stage of appeal or administrative action if the appeal or administrative action is not arisen for a cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent (a written judgment No.172 made by IP Court in 2010)

The Intellectual Property Court will not take into account any new evidence supplemented by the TIPO at the stage of appeal or administrative action if the appeal or administrative action is not arisen for a cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent (a written judgment No.172 made by IP Court in 2010)

Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act prescribes that in an administrative action concerning cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent, the Intellectual Property Court shall take into account any new evidence submitted on the same grounds for the cancellation or revocation prior to the end of the oral argument. The […]

“Trade dress” of the mobile phone is not distinctive enough to be registered as a trademark (a written judgment No.221 made by IP Court in 2010)

“Trade dress” of the mobile phone is not distinctive enough to be registered as a trademark (a written judgment No.221 made by IP Court in 2010)

The Plaintiff filed the trademark at issue “iPhone trade dress Icon Screen (color)” on July 23, 1999, designating on use of products with multifunctional portable digital electronic equipments in I.C. 09, namely the appearance and APPs shown on the screen of iPhone mobile phone. The judge of IP Court is of the opinion that the […]

A case demonstrates how a trademark is not likely to mislead the public with respect to the place of origin of the designated goods (a written judgment No.1324 made by the Supreme Court in 2010)

A case demonstrates how a trademark is not likely to mislead the public with respect to the place of origin of the designated goods (a written judgment No.1324 made by the Supreme Court in 2010)

In this case, the appellant is an internationally famous manufacturer and distributor of footwear and clothing. Since the appellant’s establishment in 1966, they have been using the trademark at issue as identification to every product they manufactured. Besides, early in 1987, the appellant has obtained registrations of the trademark at issue in the U.S., Canada, […]