Intellectual Property

There may be, but first check the publication date. Any person may file an opposition with TIPO within three months beginning the day after publication. After that, an interested party may seek invalidation on an applicable statutory ground. Article 58 grounds generally must be raised before five years have elapsed; only a bad-faith registration under Article 30(1)(9) or (11) escapes that bar. A typical imitation filing under Article 30(1)(12) requires proof that the registered mark is identical or similar to your earlier-used mark for identical or similar goods or services, and that the applicant learned of it through a contractual, geographic, business or other relationship and applied with intent to imitate it without consent. That ground is barred after five years. Preserve dated sales, advertising and web archives proving earlier use, together with contracts and correspondence showing the relationship, knowledge and intent. If opposition or invalidation succeeds, TIPO sets aside the registration.

Potentially, but information labelled confidential is not automatically a trade secret. The company must identify it and show that it is not generally known in the field, has actual or potential economic value because it is secret, and was protected by reasonable measures actually implemented. NDAs, classification, access controls, logs and exit-return procedures are relevant. Unauthorised reproduction, use, disclosure or refusal to delete may support prevention, destruction and damages; a competitor knowingly receiving or using unlawfully sourced material may also be liable. Criminal liability additionally requires a purpose of illicit gain or harm. An ordinary Article 13-1 offence requires a complaint within six months after learning the offender's identity; intended use abroad, in mainland China, Hong Kong or Macao triggers the aggravated Article 13-2 offence outside that complaint-only rule. Suspend automatic deletion and lawfully preserve company-controlled devices, backups and cloud logs, with images, hashes and chain of custody. Do not access private accounts, seize personal devices or intercept communications through self-help. Evidence controlled by the other side may require civil preservation or a criminal complaint. Collection must respect data, privacy, authority and necessity limits; defects can create liability or evidentiary disputes, but do not automatically exclude every item.

Yes, but identical content does not automatically establish infringement. The image or article must be independently created and possess at least minimal creativity; unauthorised reproduction or uploading by public transmission is potentially infringing only if no licence or fair-use exception applies. An owner may seek removal or prevention and notify the platform. Damages require intent or negligence and may use actual loss or the infringer's profit. If actual loss is difficult to prove, the court may award NT$10,000 to NT$1 million, up to NT$5 million where conduct was intentional and serious. Intentional infringement may also attract criminal liability. This kind of online copying is generally prosecuted only upon complaint, filed within six months after the complainant learns the offender's identity. Preserve source files, creation and publication records, and a complete capture or download with URL and time. If deletion is likely, consider webpage notarisation by a court or private notary. Notarisation records what appeared then; it does not itself prove ownership or infringement.

In Taiwan, a newly filed civil patent infringement action is, as a rule, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court in Banqiao, New Taipei City. Another first-instance court may hear it only under statutory exceptions, such as a written jurisdiction agreement or the defendant arguing the merits without objecting. The IPCC hears both first and second instances: ordinarily one judge at first instance and a three-judge panel on second appeal, with any permitted third-instance appeal going to the Supreme Court. A defendant may challenge validity in the infringement action, and the civil court decides that defence without waiting for separate invalidation proceedings, but validity is not disputed in every case. There is no fixed timetable: technical complexity, evidence, validity issues and appeals can extend proceedings, and multiple instances may take years. Assess infringement, validity and evidence before filing, then plan by jurisdiction if the dispute is cross-border.