Minutes - TRIPS Council Special Session - View details of the intervention/statement

Ambassador D. Mwape (Zambia)
Chinese Taipei
A.i First sub-question
25. The representative of Chinese Taipei said with respect to sub question 1 that her delegation would like to elaborate on the preliminary responses given at the last meeting. As noted before, Chinese Taipei protected geographical indications through several mechanisms, and the trademark system was one of the principal avenues. In applications for the registration of trademarks, certification marks or collective trademarks, intellectual property examiners followed the standards provided by the Trademark Act and the relevant regulations or examination guidelines to guide them in their processing and substantial determinations. Based on that legislation, when examining an application, an examiner had to consult the prior trademark database established by the Intellectual Property Office and any other available information including any objective evidence from dictionaries, governmental bulletins, newspapers, journals and magazines. As additional new sources of information became available, for example, if a new database were to be established on the basis of the joint proposal on the multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, such information would automatically be included as a source of information for examination. She said that, if an applicant was dissatisfied with a rejection by the Intellectual Property Office, the applicant could make an administrative appeal and resort to further litigation in order to have established that the decision was against the law and should be revoked. One reason for an appeal could be that an examiner had not taken into account some important information.
The Special Session took note of the statements made.