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 2026

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

A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Arrival of Laura Alonso, alongside a team of 11, will bring ‘significant value’ to ECIJA clients, says CEO
In the first of a two-part article, lawyers at Spruson & Ferguson and Marshall Gerstein provide an overview of China’s system for appealing against patent invalidation decisions
Lawyers and corporate leaders at INTA’s Business of M&A conference in New York discussed how cross-practice collaboration and early in-house involvement can help deals
Lily Li, partner at Morrison Foerster, shares how her litigation team helped secure victory at the ITC in a patent infringement case
Top talking points also included news of an appellate ruling concerning ‘Pisco’ and Indian drugmakers gearing up to launch generic versions of Ozempic as Novo Nordisk’s patent expires
The government’s keenly awaited view on AI and copyright has positive themes but leaves rights owners wanting, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
While IP Australia’s updated manual could be favourable to computer-implemented inventions, stakeholders would like to see whether a consistent and reliable standard is followed during actual examination
UKIPO will remain a competitive option as long as efficient service continues
A future opt-out has not been ruled out, but practitioners warn that the UK could fall behind in the AI race
Gift this article