Article 15 of the Constitution provides for the protection of the people*s property rights. Since the right to exclusive use of a trademark is a property right, it falls under the protection of the Constitution. A trademark right lasts ten years from the date of registration, which may be extended by renewing the registration before its expiration. The authorization of use of a trademark or assignment of a trademark right to another party is valid even if the action is not registered with the trademark authority as prescribed in the first and second paragraphs of Article 24, the second paragraph of Article 26, and the first paragraph of Article 28 of the same Act. The natural lapse of an exclusive trademark right occurs when the trademark proprietor terminates business and there is no likelihood that another party will be authorized to use the same exclusive trademark right before or after the termination of business or that the exclusive trademark right will be assigned to another party to continue the business, for the exclusive trademark right has lost its purpose, so there is no need to continue the protection. Article 33, Subparagraph 1, of the Trademark Act amended and promulgated on January 26, 1983, prescribed that the right to exclusive use of the trademark shall lapse where the proprietor terminates business before the expiration of the duration of registration (this clause became Article 34, Subparagraph 2, when the Trademark Act was again amended on December 22, 1993, and its language was also modified to: "the trademark proprietor is a juristic person whose business has been dissolved or who has had his/her business registration revoked by the competent authority. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, the trademark right is deemed to continue to exist until the conclusion of the liquidation proceeding or bankruptcy procedure"; the aforesaid clause was deleted from the current version of the Trademark Act amended on May 7, 1997), and intended to restrict the people*s property rights. But as described above, if the trademark proprietor only suspends his/her business temporarily or even if the proprietor terminates business, but there is a possibility that he/she will assign the same exclusive trademark right to another party to continue the business, the trademark has the value of continuing use, and hence, this is different from the termination of business that will cause lapse of an exclusive trademark right. Article 40, Paragraph 2, of the Civil Code prescribes that: "Until the liquidation is completed, the dissolved juristic person is deemed to continue to exist in so far as is necessary for the purpose of the liquidation." Article 25 of the Company Act prescribes that: "A dissolved company shall not be deemed dissolved to the extent that liquidation proceedings are concerned"; Article 26 of the same Act prescribes that: "A dissolved company referred to in the preceding Article may, during the liquidation proceedings, temporarily operate its business for the purpose of closing its business and facilitating the liquidation"; and Article 113 of the same Act where Article 84, Paragraph 2, applies mutatis mutandis prescribes that: "the liquidator has the right to represent the company in all litigious or non-litigious actions when performing the duties described in the preceding Paragraph; but the consent of all shareholders is required in assigning company business, including company assets and liabilities to another party." The aforesaid clauses prescribe that a juristic person or corporation is still entitled to certain rights during the liquidation proceedings after filing dissolution, and stipulate the continuation of necessary business activities by a dissolved company in the process of liquidation, and that a dissolved company may assign its business, including assets and liabilities to another party. Similarly since a dissolved company is still entitled to certain rights and is allowed to assign its business to another party, the trademark of said company retains the value of continuing use and the situation does not coincide with “termination of business” as stated in Article 33, Subparagraph 1, of the Trademark Act, upon which the trademark right lapses.
The directive of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, explanations 3(2) of the letter No. (74) Shang-Tzi-*361110 dated August 20, 1985, stated that "an entity with business registration dissolved or revoked under the Company Act" is deemed as a " terminated business" as prescribed in Article 33, Subparagraph 1, of the Trademark Act. Its interpretation runs counter to the provisions in the Civil Code and Corporate Act described above, and denies the exclusive trademark right of a dissolved juristic person having the value of continuing existence. Such interpretation apparently exceeds the bounds set forth in Article 33, Subparagraph 1, of the Trademark Act and runs counter to the intent of the Constitution in protection of the people*s property rights, and hence, should no longer be applied.