Article 33, Paragraph 1 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act stipulates that in an administrative action concerning cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent, the Intellectual Property Court shall take into account any new evidence submitted on the same grounds for the cancellation or revocation prior to the end of the oral argument. It is questionable whether it is allowed to claim any other new ground for cancellation or revocation during the administrative appeal or the administrative suit after the Intellectual Property Office made its decision based on the grounds, which were claimed when the cancellation or revocation was filed.

The IP Court held in 2016 in an administrative suit concerning a trademark revocation case that it is not allowed claiming any new ground for cancellation or revocation during the proceedings of the administrative appeal or the administrative suit. The IP Court pointed out that the administrative appeal or the administrative suit mainly reviews the issues of whether the IPO's administrative decision is made legitimately or not and should not review any new ground that the IPO had never had chance for examination. Article 33, Paragraph 1 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act just allows new evidence to be submitted on the same grounds which were claimed before the IPO made the decision.