In accordance with Article 52, Paragraph 1, and Article 37, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 12, of the Trademark Act, an interested party may request the competent authority in charge of trademark matters to conduct a review and invalidate a trademark registration, if a design is identical with or similar to another person*s registered trademark. The purposes of this statute are to maintain the order of transactions, to protect the interests of the holder of the trademark right, and to avoid petitions for damages that might result from public consumers’ confusion in identifying goods by different merchants. With regard to the time limit within which a petition for review and invalidation must be filed, by reference to the meaning and purpose of Article 52, Paragraph 3, and Article 25, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1, of the same Act, clearly the limitation that no petition may be filed ten years after the registration protects both the general public and private interests, and hence, does not contradict Article 15 of the Constitution for the protection of people*s private property.

       A trademark right is one type of property right that must be protected in accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution. Yet it can be limited by law for the sake and necessity of enhancing the public interest. An interested party may, in accordance with Article 52, Paragraph 1, and Article 37, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 12, of the Trademark Act, request the competent authority in charge of trademark matters to conduct a review and invalidate a trademark registration, if a design is identical with or similar to another person*s registered trademark. This is to maintain the order of transactions, to protect the interests of the holder of the trademark right, and to avoid petitions for damages that might result from public consumers’ confusion in identifying goods by different merchants. Note that Article 37, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 12, involves the determination of facts regarding identical or similar trademarks and goods, and it is inevitable that certain registrations are erroneously permitted as a matter of fact. Thus, without any remedy, the public interest may be affected because either the rights and interests of the prior trademark registrants will be jeopardized or consumers may be confused. Therefore, Article 52 concerning review and invalidation is designed to redress these situations. However, for an erroneously registered mark that has been used for several years, the good reputation established by the continuous use of the mark by the holder should also be protected. As a matter of respect for and maintenance of the status quo of a certain legal relationship, the mistake of allowing the erroneously registered trademark is deemed redressed after a certain period of time and is no longer subject to review and invalidation. Article 25, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1, and Article 52, Paragraph 3, of the same [Trademark] Act has set forth a ten-year period that protects both the public and private interests and does not contradict Article 15 of the Constitution. Whether such a statute of limitation is proper is within the Legislature*s scope of discretion. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that invalidating a registered trademark concerns the credibility of the registration itself and should be reviewed with honesty and equity. 

*Translated and edited by Professor Andy Y. Sun