Taiwan: Accelerated trade mark dispute examination

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Deborah Kirk discusses why IP and technology have become central pillars in transactions and explains why clients need practically minded lawyers
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for patent work, including which firms are moving up
Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
Gift this article