Parties involved in trademark opposition, invalidation or revocation proceedings sometimes attempt to assert new facts or present new evidence at the stage of the administrative appeal or administrative litigation proceeding after the Intellectual Property Office has made its decision.
According to article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, in an administrative litigation proceeding concerning the cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court must take into account any new evidence submitted on the same grounds for the cancellation or revocation prior to the end of the oral argument. However, article 254 of the Administrative Litigation Act stipulates that the Supreme Administrative Court will base its judgment on the facts found in the judgment rendered by the High Administrative Court.
In a recent appeal of a trademark opposition proceeding, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that as the plaintiff had submitted an internet keyword analysis report as new evidence after the appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court should not accept such new evidence.
The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that the trial stage of the Supreme Administrative Court is a trial only for legal issues. According to article 254 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the facts determined by the judgment of the High Administrative Court must be the basis for the judgment. New facts or new evidence should not be admitted as grounds for appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.
For further information on this topic please contact Ruey-Sen Tsai at Lee and Li Attorneys at Law by telephone (+886 2 2763 8000) or email ([email protected]). The Lee and Li Attorneys at Law website can be accessed at www.leeandli.com.