Newsletter
Supreme Court Reveals Requirements for Adopting Trademark Infringement Assessment
Trademark infringement, including manufacture or sale of counterfeit trademarked goods, will be subject to civil liabilities and/or criminal punishments. The so-called counterfeit trademarked goods mean the goods which are manufactured without the authorization or consents of the trademark owner or its exclusive licensee. In the specific cases, how to determine whether it is a counterfeit product sometimes is not easy. The trademark infringement assessment report is usually issued by the trademark owner or its authorized person or institution. In order to challenge the credibility of the appraisal report, the suspect may argue that the goods are genuine old styled products or second-hand goods that have been circulated by many people, or further argue that the trademark infringement assessment should not be conducted by the trademark owner or its authorized person or institution.
One of the recent key issues of the trademark infringement cases is what requirements the trademark infringement assessment report should meet before it can be adopted. The Trademark Act is silent on this issue.
The Supreme Court revoked the criminal judgement of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court for the case of trademark counterfeiting in 2022, citing the Code of Criminal Procedure, and revealed the principle of evidence investigation for the acceptance of evidentiary competence of the trademark infringement assessment.
The Supreme Court cited Article 206, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Law and expounded that that the assessment process and its results shall be reported by the appraiser in words or in writing. The so-called assessment process refers to the procedures and steps of carrying out the appraisal, including how the appraisal method is carried out, and the data and information collected and the content of which are necessary for the appraisal. The so-called assessment result refers to judgments and demonstrations made by the appraisers on the appraisal matters based on their professional knowledge or experience. The assessment results made due to the lack of necessary materials for appraisal cannot be scientifically verified based on the basis and inference process, and are therefore not sufficient as the basis against the defendant.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the appraisal report cited as evidence of the defendant's crime in the original trial only indicated the assessment conclusion but did not explain the methods and the ways how the appraiser acted according to his professional knowledge the details of the assessment process. Accordingly, such an assessment report should not be accepted as evidence.