| Trademark | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I. | Reflecting on the Past & Thriving into the Future | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As we embrace the journey ahead, let “Jaw,” signifying radiant light, illuminate the path, allowing “Hwa,” representing the beauty of blossoming flowers, to thrive in every opportunity. Grateful for your presence and looking forward to more. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| II. | The National Holidays in the Year 2025 in Taiwan | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For the Chinese Lunar New Year holidays, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) and our firm will be closed on the following days: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| We will resume working on February 03, 2025 (Mon.). Kindly send us your orders of new patent or trademark applications or your instructions of any time-consuming work at least one week before the holidays to avoid urgent work, if at all possible. Thank you for your kind attention. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The year 2025 National Holidays in Taiwan, R.O.C | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Notices: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. | Our offices will be closed on Saturdays and Sundays, except for the one specified as a working day in the table above | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. | If you should have any instructions or require any information from us within the above holidays, please contact us as far in advance as possible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. | We would greatly appreciate it if you would forward any new Schedule of Charges or Filing Forms to us as soon as they are issued or updated. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| III. | The Impact of Trademark Revocation on Infringement Lawsuits- Introduction of Supreme Court Civil Judgment No. 113 Taishangze 275 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| According to the Trademark Act§63 I② in Taiwan, a trademark may be revoked if it has not been used for three consecutive years without legitimate reasons. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) may revoke the registration either upon request or by its own authority. Furthermore, Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act§41 II stipulates that “the holder of the IP right shall not claim in the civil action any rights against the opposing party where the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation or revocation of the IP right.” According to this article, if a defendant argues that the plaintiff's trademark is subject to revocation for 3 years of non-use, and the court agrees, the plaintiff cannot claim infringement against the defendant. The irrationality here is so obvious: the trademark is revoked for a 3-year non-use, which means, it is sound and valid during and before the 3-year period. But the IP Case Adjudication Act §41 II, on its face, denies compensations to the IP right holder for infringement that occurred during this period. The Supreme Court Civil Judgment No.113 Taishangze 275, has found the problem and fixed it with a detailed interpretation of the IP Case Adjudication Act§41 II. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Background: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The plaintiff, as the trademark owner, claimed that the defendant used its trademark without permission from November 2017 to September 2021, constituting trademark infringement. The defendant countered that the trademark has not been used for a continuous period of 3 years before July 20, 2020, providing grounds for revocation. In the second instance, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (the IP court) found the facts above and ruled that the plaintiff cannot claim any rights against the defendant, based on the Trademark Act§63 I② and the IP Case Adjudication Act§41 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Supreme Court’s decision: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Supreme Court overruled the previous decision, stating: "Trademark revocation applies to registered trademarks if they have not been used or misused. The trademark registration is invalid from the date of revocation. The Trademark Act does not explicitly state whether the effect of revocation is retroactive. However, in light of the Trademark Act§65 III “Where the trademark registration was revoked… a trademark… shall not be applied for registration by the former proprietor…” and the Administrative Procedure Act §125 “A lawful administrative disposition shall become ineffective as of the date of its revocation,” the trademark registration is only invalidated from the revocation date onwards, rather than retroactively. As a result, a plaintiff can still claim damages for infringement that occurred while the trademark was valid, and their right to compensation is not affected by the revocation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The legislative rationale behind IP Case Adjudication Act§41 II is that: the validity of registration of IP is determined by IPO or administrative courts, while infringement cases are tried by civil courts. If an IP right was challenged during a civil action, the court would have to pause the proceeding until an administrative decision concerning the validity of the right was made. This caused delays and hindered the rights holder from timely protection. Therefore, to speed up the civil trial proceeding, the Act allows civil courts to decide on the validity of IP rights and grant damages accordingly. The civil courts are temporarily playing the role of administrative courts, anticipating what the administrative court might decide regarding the validity of the IP and using it as the basis for their rulings. Nonetheless, the civil court’s decision only affects the pending case and does not affect the validity of the IP registration, which still requires administrative confirmation. Here, the IP court found that the trademark owner had not used the trademark for 3 years prior to July 20, 2020, providing grounds for revocation. Since the defendant’s infringement occurred from November 2017 to September 2021. Can the plaintiff claim rights for infringements occurring from November 2017 to July 20, 2020? On the face of the IP Case Adjudication Act§41 II, the answer is no, and the IP court ruled accordingly. However, this decision is hardly reasonable. The purpose of trademark revocation is to deprive the owner of exclusive rights due to non-use for three years, but the trademark was still valid during those three years. Generally, to revoke a trademark, an applicant must file a request for revocation with the IPO, stating that the trademark in question has not been used for a continuous period of 3 years prior to the date of filing. That means, the revocation can in no way take effect before the filing date, which is, in a suit, the date the defendant use revocation as a defense. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling that trademark revocation takes effect from the date of revocation, not retroactively, is a more reasonable interpretation of the IP Case Adjudication Act§41 II and the Trademark Act§63 I② . |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Conclusion: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| If a civil court finds grounds for trademark revocation in an infringement case, the revocation does not have a retroactive effect. A plaintiff can still claim damages for infringement that occurred while the trademark was valid. However, this conclusion does not appear in the "plain language" of the statutes, so trademark owners should be aware of the Supreme Court's decision. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Consequences of Owner-Caused Trademark Vulnerability: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This case serves as a stark reminder that a trademark owner's own actions can directly undermine their rights. By using 'Hatfield' descriptively and allowing it to be perceived as a varietal name, the plaintiff inadvertently stripped the mark of its distinctiveness. This emphasizes the need for trademark owners to carefully manage and protect their marks to prevent unintended consequences that could jeopardize their legal standing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
