| Summary: | 碩士 === 中國文化大學 === 法律學系碩士在職專班 === 106 === Due to the characters of intellectual property cases, Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act allows the parties, before the end of the oral argument, to present new evidence for the same reasons for revocation or abolition. Article 33 breaks the traditional rule that in a revocation litigation in the field of traditional administrative litigation, the facts are based on the facts at the time when the original decision was made. In practice, not only in the administrative litigation to revoke or abolish the registration of a trademark, but also in the administrative litigation for a trademark application for registration, the proportion of presenting new evidence is quite high. This triggers this study of the limitations about presenting new evidences in trademark administrative litigation. In this study, the laws regarding providing the new evidence in trademark administrative litigation cases in the R.O.C and the P.R.C. are compared and the court judgements of P.R.C. and R.O.C. are also compared to study the current practices in the R.O.C and the P.R.C.. After the comparison between the court judgements in the R.O.C. and the P.R.C., it is found that in practice, both intellectual property courts in both the R.O.C and the P.R.C. consider the new evidences presented in the administrative litigation stages. However, it is also found that the Taiwanese Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and the Taiwanese Trademark Law indeed have contradictions in providing new evidences in the administrative litigation for the trademark application for registration. Therefore, this study proposes suggestions for amendments to Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and prays for practical and judicial benefits.
|
|---|
