Taiwan: IP office allows deferred examination of design applications

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: IP office allows deferred examination of design applications

In Taiwan, both invention and design applications are subject to substantive examination. According to the Patent Act, the applicant must file a request for examination of an invention application at the time of filing the application or within three years from the filing date. If such a request is not filed in an invention application within the statutory time limit, the application will be dismissed irrevocably. On the other hand, a design application will automatically go to the examination stage after the formalities are fulfilled with no need for the applicant to request examination. Therefore a design application could be approved quite soon after filing. Though this seems favourable, it may not necessarily be what the applicant wants, especially when the applicant wishes to defer publication of that specific design due to commercial considerations.

In response to requests from various industries, Taiwan's IP Office has decided that, from July 1 2018 requests for deferred examination of design applications should be entertained.

According to the published guidelines, except for design applications that have received notices of allowance or examination reports, or from which divisional applications have been filed, applicants are permitted to file, free of charge, requests for deferred examination at the time of filing new design applications or within one year from the filing dates (or the priority dates, if claimed).

When filing a request for deferred examination of a design application, the applicant must specify in the application form an expected date for commencing/resuming examination, and said date needs to be within one year from the filing date (or the priority date, if claimed.) Although a request for deferred examination can be withdrawn, the applicant is not allowed to file a further request for deferral. In general, when the expected date for commencing/resuming examination of a design application as specified in the application form is due, the design application will be placed in the queue for examination, together with the other design applications filed in the same year.

lin.jpg

Chiuling Lin


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

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
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
The court ruled against the owner of the ‘Umbro’ mark, despite noting that post-sale confusion can be a legitimate ground for infringement
Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Practitioners say the Bombay High Court shouldn’t have refused well-known trademark recognition for TikTok simply because the app is banned in India
In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Gift this article