Recent court cases in Taiwan have affirmed that the Supreme Court will reject appeals filed for a trademark administrative suit without indicating the reason of the appeal by submitting specific facts which lead to finding that the original judgment is in contravention of the laws and regulations, say lawyers at JAW-HWA International Patent & Trademark & Law Offices in Taipei.
First, the judgment of the similarity of two or more trademarks should take their distinctiveness into account according to how the trademarks are used, says JAW-HWA. The wider and more frequently a trademark is used in commerce for a longer period, the more distinctive a trademark is as recognised by consumers. This kind of trademark will have a stronger position to not only exclude similar trademarks from use or registration, but will also be easier to be deemed that the trademark has extended the business field to the surrounding areas of commodities.
Under the above premise, the judgment of the similarity of two or more trademarks should compare their appearances as a whole as well as referring to the volume of the evidence of the use of those trademarks. The judgment should include all factors comprehensively. When judging the similarity of two trademarks, on one hand, it should not evaluate the meanings, appearances or pronunciation of marks separately, and on the other hand not all factors will carry the same weight but their force should differ case by case.
The appellant who would like to argue against the decision made by the court should provide the convincing arguments specifically indicating the distinction and factors which shall be considered and focused more in the particular case (preferably providing statistics as support). If the appellant only argues by using the standard contents/laws issued by the government authorities in the Appeal without providing any supporting evidence, the Supreme Court will not agree that such an Appeal meets the legal threshold of accusing the Administrative Court of misjudgement.
