Newsletter
COURT INVOKES EQUALITY PRINCIPLE IN TRADEMARK CASE
Article 6 of the Law of Administrative Proce-dures (LAP) prohibits unequal treatment in ac-tions by administrative agencies, except for le-gitimate reasons. However, when hearing ad-ministrative suits over the registration of trade-marks or service marks and other trade-mark-related disputes, in the past the courts al-ways adhered to the principle that each applica-tion for registration of a mark should be exam-ined individually on its merits, and that the out-come of an individual examination sets no precedent for other cases. They never invoked the principle of equality as a reason to challenge the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) regarding its handling of cases of an identical nature.
However, in a 2002 judgment, the Taipei High Administrative Court stated that although in principle trademark and service mark examina-tions set no precedent, nevertheless examinations must not violate the principle of equality under Article 6 of the LAP. In other words, cases based on identical facts must not receive unequal treatment. The court further stated that the ser-vice mark that was the subject of the disputed registration application was very similar to a service mark for which the IPO had previously granted registration to the plaintiff, and both marks were designated for use with identical or similar services. The factual basis of both ap-plications was the same, and based on the prin-ciple of equality, they should have been treated the same. When examining the earlier applica-tion, the IPO had determined that the mark for which the plaintiff sought registration was not similar to a certain other service mark registered by another company, and had granted the appli-cation. But on examining the later application, the IPO had determined that the mark for which the plaintiff sought registration was similar to the same other mark, and had rejected the applica-tion on that basis. This clearly violated the principle of equality. Therefore the court an-nulled the IPO decision and the administrative appeal decision of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and ordered the IPO to render another decision in keeping with its judgment.
In a similar 2002 case, the Taipei High Admin-istrative Court also cited the principle of equality under Article 6 of the LAP.
In a number of specific trademark- and pat-ent-related administrative suits brought since 1 January 2001 when the LAP took effect, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Taipei High Administrative Court have elucidated the substantive meaning of the principles of "changed circumstances (rebus sic stantibus)," "proportionality," "good faith," and "equality" contained in the LAP, and have cited these prin-ciples as the legal basis for their judgments. Their interpretations have far-reaching implica-tions for the handling of similar cases in the fu-ture.