Newsletter
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OR-DERS IPO TO DISMISS TRADEMARK INVALIDATION ACTION
In the past, when the Administrative Court heard suits contesting decisions in trademark applica-tion, opposition or invalidation cases, it almost always ruled in favor of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Even when the court ruled for the plaintiff, because the old Code of Administrative Procedure only allowed suits for revocation, it could only set aside the original decision of the IPO, the appeal decision of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) or the re-appeal de-cision of the Executive Yuan. The court could not directly order the IPO to render a decision with a specific content.
However, the new Code of Administrative Pro-cedure, which came into force on 1 July 2000, additionally provides for suits for performance, suits for confirmation (including confirmation of the invalidity of an administrative decision, and confirmation of the existence or otherwise of a public-law relationship), suits for fulfillment of obligations (including suits against omission, or refusal to consider an application), joint suits for damages, and suits to uphold the public interest; along with procedures for the provisional pro-tection of rights (including petition to suspend execution of an administrative disposition, pro-visional seizure and preliminary injunction). Therefore, to effectively enforce his rights, a plaintiff bringing an administrative suit may choose the appropriate form of administrative remedy according to the needs of the case.
In a recent judgment in a trademark invalidation action, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled against the IPO, and required it to directly render a decision dismissing the action. This is the first time since the new Code of Administra-tive Procedure came into force that an adminis-trative court has required the IPO to render a decision with a specific content. Explaining its ruling, the court stated that to prevent the IPO from reinstating its original opinion after its original decision had been revoked by the court, it was directly ordering the IPO to dismiss the invalidation action. However, since the case can still be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, the judgment is not yet final.