Newsletter
No New Facts or Evidence Admissible During Trial of Supreme Administrative Court in Trademark Opposition
The parties involved in trademark opposition, invalidation or revocation sometimes intend to assert new facts or present new evidence at the stage of the administrative appeal or administrative litigation after the Intellectual Property Office makes a decision.
According to Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act, in an administrative litigation concerning cancellation or revocation of a registered trademark or patent, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court shall take into account any new evidence submitted on the same grounds for the cancellation or revocation prior to the end of the oral argument.
However, Article 254 of the Administrative Litigation Act stipulates that the Supreme Administrative Court shall base its judgment on the facts found in the judgment rendered by the High Administrative Court.
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in an appeal for a trademark opposition event in 2022 that as the plaintiff submitted the Internet Keyword Analysis Report as new evidence after the appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court should not accept such new evidence.
The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that the trial stage of the Supreme Administrative Court is a trial only for legal issues. According to Article 254 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the facts determined by the judgment of the High Administrative Court shall be the basis for the judgment. New facts or new evidence should not be admitted as grounds for appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.