Newsletter
TRADEMARK AGENTS NOT DEFINITELY ENTITLED TO AP-PEAR IN ADMINISTRATIVE LITI-GATION
According to Article 49, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP), an agent ad litem in administrative litigation must be an at-torney-at-law. A person other than an attor-ney-at-law to whom any of the following cir-cumstances applies may also act as an agent ad litem: (1) The person has, in accordance with legislation, obtained qualification as an agent in matters relating to the case under litigation; (2) The person possesses professional expertise relevant to the case under litigation; (3) The person acts as agent ad litem due to professional duties; (4) The person is a relative of a party.
Thus if a person is neither an attorney-at-law nor someone qualifies under any of the above pro-visions, the administrative court should make an order barring him from acting as a representative in the litigation. Article 49, Paragraph 3 of the CAP further provides that if a non-attorney is appointed as an agent ad litem on the basis of having expertise relevant to the case or of being a relative of one of the parties, but the court con-siders the appointment inappropriate, the court may rule to bar the appointment. There has been some dispute in practice over whether a trade-mark agent or patent agent is qualified to repre-sent a client in administrative litigation by virtue of possessing "professional expertise" as referred to in Article 49, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the CAP.
In a 2004 ruling of a trademark case, the Taipei High Administrative Court stated that current legislation imposes no requirements whatever for qualification as a trademark agent, and the expected new legislation on trademark attorneys is still in preparation. The court held that the trademark agents in the case before the court had not produced sufficient evidence to show that they had adequate professional expertise in the Trademark Act to handle the case, and it was thus inappropriate for the plaintiff to appoint them as its agents ad litem. The court therefore barred the trademark agents from representing the plaintiff.
With regard to patent agents, in current court practice there is little dispute that they are able to act as agents ad litem. However, it is worth noting that in a 2004 ruling in a patent case, the Taipei High Administrative Court stated that in the case of a person other than a lawyer or patent agent, a certificate of advanced studies in cor-porate marketing management, a degree certifi-cate and Class B license in electrical engineering, or a letter of employment as a lecturer in cultural creativity and product planning, were not suffi-cient to show that the persons concerned had adequate expertise in patent law to act as repre-sentatives in the case concerned, and the court would not permit them to act as agents ad litem in that case.