¤K¨÷¤G¤Q¤@´Á¡@89¦~11¤ë16¤é

¥»¡@´Á¡@´£¡@­nHEADLINES

1.§Ú°ê»Pªk°ê¥[±j«OÅ@´¼°]Åv¦X§@

Taiwan and France Strengthen IPR Protection
2.°Ó¼Ðªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×­nÂI

Trademark Law Amendment Submitted to 
Legislative Yuan
3.µÛ§@Åvªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×­nÂI

Copyright Law Amendment Submitted to 
Legislative Yuan
4.´¼¼z§½­×¥¿°Ó¼Ð³W¶O¦¬¶O·Ç«h

Increased Trademark Fees Approved

ªk¡@³W¡@³ø¡@¾É

Laws and Regulations   

1.§Ú°ê»Pªk°ê¥[±j«OÅ@´¼°]Åv¦X§@

¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½§½ªø³¯©ú¨¹©ó¥»(¤K¤Q¤E)¦~¤Q¤ë¶¡»Pªk°ê¤u·~´¼¼z°]²£§½ªøº~¹Å»®¶i¦æÂùÃä©w´Á¿Ô°Ó¡A¤µ¦~·|½Í¥H°sÃþ°Ó¼Ðªº»{ÃÒ¬°­«ÂI¡A¥t¥~¤]´N¥Íª«¤Î¯è¤Ó¬ì§Þ±M§Q«OÅ@¡A¥æ´«·N¨£¡C
³¯§½ªø©ó¿Ô°Ó·|ij«á«ü¥X¡AÂù¤è¨M©w³z¹L¿Ô°Ó¡A«Ø¥ß¤@®M§¹¾ãªº°sÃþ°Ó¼Ð»{ÃÒ¨î«×¡A¨Ã¦P·N¬Û¤¬´£¨Ñ¦UºØ°Ó¼Ð«~µPªº­ì©l¸ê®Æ¡A¥H¥¿½T¸ê°T«OÅ@¼t°Óªº§Î¶H¡A¦P®É«OÅ@¥xÆW®ø¶OªÌªºÅv¯q¡C
¦¹¥~¡AÂù¤è¤]¦P·N¦b¥Íª«¬ì§Þ¤è­±¡A¦p¿ò¶Ç¬ì§Þ¡B°ò¦]§ï³y¤uµ{¡B»Ã¥Àµßµ¥¦UºØ·L¥Íª«¡B¬Ì­]¡B¥Íª«½Æ»s¬ì§Þµ¥ªºµo©ú¡A³£¦C¤JÂùÃä±M§Q«OÅ@½d³ò¡C
³¯§½ªø±j½Õ¡A¥[±j¹ï¥ý¶i°ê®a¦UºØ¬ì§Þ°Ó¼Ð±M§Qªº«OÅ@¡A¥i¥H¼W¥[¥~°ê¼t°Ó¹ï¥xÆW¥«³õ¤Î·~ªÌªº«H¿à¡A¼W¶i©¼¦¹ªº¤F¸Ñ¡A¦³§U©ó¬ì§Þ¦X§@»P²¾Âà¡A«P¶i¥xÆW²£·~ªºª@¯Å¡C¥L¬Û«H¡A»Pªk°ê¥[±j´¼¼z°]²£«OÅ@ªº¤¬°Ê¡A«OÅ@¦Xªk¡A§ùµ´«Dªk¡AÂù¤è¤u·~¦X§@±N§óÁÍ©ó¨ãÅé¦Ó²Ï¹ê¡C
¡]¥»½gÂà¸ü¨Ã¸`¿ý¦Û¤¤¥¡ªÀ°OªÌ¹Q©ú´¼¤Ú¾¤¤K¤Q¤E¦~¤Q¤ë¤G¤Q¤»¤é·s»D½Z¡^

1.Taiwan and France Strengthen IPR Protection

Intellectual Property Office Director General Chen Ming-bang and France’s National Institute of Intellectual Property Director Daniel Hangard held an annual bilateral consultation in October 2000. This year’s meeting focused on alcohol beverage trademarks and the protection of microorganism and aerospace patents.
The meeting resulted in a decision to establish a comprehensive system for the recognition of alcohol beverage trademarks. The two countries also agreed to provide each other with source materials for trademarked products in order that accurate information can be used to protect the image of producers as well as protect the rights of Taiwan consumers.
In addition, the two sides agreed that biotechnology inventions would receive patent protection. Examples of such inventions included developments in the fields of genetics, gene modification, vaccines, cloning, and yeast fungi and other types of microorganisms. 
Chen emphasized that strengthening the protection of trademarks and patents owned by technology-related companies from developed countries can increase the confidence those companies have in working with Taiwan companies and in Taiwan overall. He also noted that increased mutual understanding facilitates economic cooperation and technology transfer, and can therefore help upgrading Taiwan industry. Chen predicted that taking steps to improve the protection of French-owned intellectual property would enhance business ties between the two countries.

2.°Ó¼Ðªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×­nÂI

°Ó¼Ðªk©ó¤Q¤E¦~¤­¤ë¤»¤é¨î©w¤½¥¬¡A¦Û¤G¤Q¦~¤@¤ë¤@¤é¬I¦æ¥H¨Ó¡A¾ú¸g¤E¦¸­×¥¿¡A¯÷°t¦X¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk©w©ó¤E¤Q¦~¤@¤ë¤@¤é¬I¦æ¡A¦æ¬F°|¨Ã­q©w¡u¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk±À°Ê­pµe¡v¡A¶½¥O¦U¦æ¬F¾÷Ãö¥þ­±À˵ø²{¦æªk³W¤§¦æ¬Fµ{§Ç¬°¥²­n¤§½Õ¾ã¡C¬O¤Z¯A¤Î¤H¥ÁÅv§Q¸q°È¤§¨Æ¶µªÌ¡A¨Ì¤¤¥¡ªk³W¼Ð·Çªk²Ä¤­±ø²Ä¤G´Ú³W©w¡AÀ³¥Hªk«ß©w¤§¡F¦Óªk«ß±ÂÅv¥Hªk³W©R¥O­­¨î¤H¥ÁÅv§Q©Î½Ò¥H¤H¥Á¸q°È©Î³W©w¨ä¥L­«­n¨Æ¶µªÌ¡A¨ä±ÂÅv¤§¥Øªº¡B¤º®e¤Î½d³òÀ³¨ãÅé©ú½T¡Fªk«ß¥Î»y©y¤©¥¿½T°Ï¤Àµ¥¡A§¡¬°À˵ø²{¦æªk³W¬O§_²Å¦X¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk¤§­«­n­ì«h¡A¬°¦]À³¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk¤§¬I¦æ¡A¨Ã¬°¥[¤J¥@¬É¶T©ö²Õ´¡]WTO¡^¡A¼W­qÃö©óÃä¹ÒºÞ¨î±¹¬I¤§³W©w¡C¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½¬¸ÀÀ¨ã¡u°Ó¼Ðªk¡v³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×¡A­×¥¿­p¤Q¤»±ø¡C¦æ¬F°|°£©ó¥»¡]¤K¤Q¤E¡^¦~¤Q¤@¤ë¤K¤é¼fij³q¹L¸Ó¯ó®×¡A¨Ã¤w©ó¦P¦~¤ë¤Q¤é¨ç½Ð¥ßªk°|¼fij¡C
¯÷±N«e´¦¡u°Ó¼Ðªk¡v³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×­nÂI¡A±Ô­z¦p¦¸¡G
(1)¬°ÁYµu©µ®iµù¥U¥Ó½Ð¤§¼f¬dµ{§Ç©Ò»Ý®É¶¡¡A´£°ª¦æ¬F®Ä¯à¡A¼o°£©µ®i¥Ó½Ð¤§¹êÅé¼f¬d¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤G¤Q¤­±ø¡^
(2)´N¦Xªk¤§¦æ¬F³B¤À¤§¥¢®Ä¡A¦pµù¥U«á¤£·í¨Ï¥Îµù¥U°Ó¼Ð©Î¼Ð³¹¡A©Î¼f©w«á¤£·í¨Ï¥Î¼f©w°Ó¼Ð¡A¨Ï¨ä®Ä¤O¥¢®Ä¤§¦æ¬F³B¤À§ï¥H¡u¼o¤î¡v³B¤ÀºÙ¤§¡C
¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤T¤Q¤@±ø¡B²Ä¥|¤Q¤G±ø¡B²Ä¥|¤Q¥|±ø¤Î²Ä¤C¤Q¤»±ø¡^
(3)´N¹Hªk¤§¦æ¬F³B¤À¤§¥¢®Ä¡A¦p¥H«I®`¥L¤H¤§µÛ§@Åv¡B·s¦¡¼Ë±M§QÅv©Î¨ä¥LÅv§Q¦ÓÀò­ãµù¥UªÌ¡A¥H¤Îµù¥U¦³¹H¤Ï¥»ªk¤§³W©wªÌ¡A§¡­×¥¿¥H¡uºM¾P¡v³B¤ÀºÙ¤§¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤T¤Q¤@±ø¤§¤@¤Î²Ä¤­¤Q¤G±ø¡^
(4)¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk´N¦æ¬F³B¤À¥¢®Ä¤§®ÉÂI¤w¦³³W©w¡A¬G°Ó¼Ð±M¥ÎÅv®ø·À¤§®ÉÂI¤wµL¯S§O³W©w¤§¥²­n¡A¬¸§R°£²{¦æ±ø¤å²Ä¤T¤Q¤T±ø¡C
(5)©ú©w«I®`°Ó¼Ð±M¥ÎÅvª««~¤§Ãä¹ÒºÞ¨î±¹¬I¡G°Ó¼Ð±M¥ÎÅv¤H¹ï«I®`¨ä°Ó¼Ð±M¥ÎÅv¤§ª««~¡A±o¥Ó½Ð®üÃö¥ý¤©¬d¦©¤§³W©w»Pµ{§Ç¡B®üÃöÀ³¼o¤î¬d¦©»P¨Ì¥Ó½ÐªðÁÙ«OÃÒª÷¤§ªk©w¨Æ¥Ñ¤Î±ÂÅv­q©w¹ê¬I¿ìªk¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤»¤Q¤@±ø¤§¤@¦Ü²Ä¤»¤Q¤@±ø¤§¥|¡^
(6)Ãö©ó¾A¥Î·sªk«ß¤§°ò·ÇÂI¡A¯A¤Î¤H¥ÁÅv¯q¬Æ¹d¡AÀ³¥Hªk«ß©w¤§¡A¬¸¥Ñ¥»ªk¬I¦æ²Ó«h²¾¦C¥»ªk³W©w¤§¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤C¤Q¤C±ø¤§¤@¡^
(7)¬°´Á¥»¦¸­×¥¿»P¤K¤Q¤»¦~¤­¤ë¤C¤é³¡¤À­×¥¿±ø¤å¤§¬I¦æ¤é´Á±o¥H©ú½T¡A¬¸©ú©w¦U¦¸­×¥¿¤§¬I¦æ¤é´Á¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤C¤Q¤E±ø¡^

2.Trademark Law Amendment Submitted to Legislative Yuan

On 10 November 2000, an amendment affecting 16 articles of the Trademark Law was submitted by the Executive Yuan to the Legislative Yuan. The amendment is intended to ensure that the provisions of the Trademark Law are in conformance with the Law of Administrative Procedure, which is scheduled to be enforced on 1 January 2001. The Executive Yuan has ordered that all administrative agencies review the laws they enforce to make sure that the administrative procedures of these laws are in conformance with the requirements of the Law of Administrative Procedure. Moreover, according to the Central Laws and Regulations Standards Law, procedures which result in decisions infringing on the rights and duties of individuals must be set forth in law. In addition, if a law provides delegation through a regulation restricting individual rights, imposing duties on individuals, or regulating other significant matters, the purpose, contents, and scope of the delegation must be clearly stated.
The proposed amendment to the Trademark Law is also intended to ensure that Taiwan’s border control measures are in accordance with international norms in order to facilitate Taiwan’s accession to the World Trade Organization.
The principle contents of the amendment are as follows:
a.eliminating the requirement that trademark holders undergo a substantive examination process to renew trademarks (Article 25); 
b.Adopting the term “cancellation* to describe the invalidation of a trademark registration where such cancellation is made in an administration proceeding following a legal registration of a trademark. Examples of such cancellation would be when a trademark or an approved trademark design has not been put into use. (Articles 31, 42, 44 and 76);
c.Adopting the term “revocation* to describe the invalidation of a trademark registration where an administration proceeding determines the registration of the trademark violated the law. Examples of such revocation would be when a trademark was registered which infringed upon a copyright, a new design patent, or another right of a person. (Articles 31bis and 52);
d.Deleting Article 33 because the Law of Administrative Procedure provides at what date a right shall be considered invalid when a cancellation decision is made. Thus, there is no need for a specific provision in the Trademark Law governing the same situation. 
e.Setting forth the procedures under which trademark owners may demand that Customs suspend the release of infringing goods. The Customs must issue regulations governing the suspension of seizure and return of bonds (Article 61bis-61quarto);
f.Transferring provisions regarding the standards for the applicability of the amended or the prior law from the Enforcement Rules to the Trademark Law based on the consideration that substantial effects on individual rights must be governed in laws and not supporting regulations (Article 77bis);
g.Clarifying the dates of enforcement of this amendment and the amendment of 7 May 1997 (Article 79).

3.µÛ§@Åvªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×­nÂI

µÛ§@Åvªk©ó¤Q¤C¦~¤­¤ë¤Q¥|¤é¨î©w¤½¥¬¡A¾ú¸g¤E¦¸­×¥¿¡A¯÷¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk©ó¤K¤Q¤K¦~¤G¤ë¤T¤é¸g¡@Á`²Î©ú¥O¤½¥¬¡A¨Ã©w©ó¤E¤Q¦~¤@¤ë¤@¤é¬I¦æ¡A¤Z¯A¤Î¤H¥ÁÅv§Q¸q°È¤§¨Æ¶µªÌ¡A¨Ì¤¤¥¡ªk³W¼Ð·Çªk²Ä¤­±ø²Ä¤G´Ú³W©w¡AÀ³¥Hªk«ß©w¤§¡F¦Óªk«ß±ÂÅv¥Hªk³W©R¥O­­¨î¤H¥ÁÅv§Q©Î½Ò¥H¤H¥Á¸q°È©Î³W©w¨ä¥L­«­n¨Æ¶µªÌ¡A¨ä±ÂÅv¤§¥Øªº¡B¤º®e¤Î½d³òÀ³¨ãÅé©ú½T¡Fªk«ß¥Î»y©y¤©¥¿½T°Ï¤Àµ¥¡A¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½¬¸ÀÀ¨ã¡uµÛ§@Åvªk¡v²Ä¤G±ø¡B²Ä¤C¤Q¤@±ø¡B²Ä¤E¤Q±ø¤§¤@­×¥¿¯ó®×¡A­p­×¥¿¤T±ø¡C¦æ¬F°|°£©ó¥»¡]¤K¤Q¤E¡^¦~¤Q¤@¤ë¤K¤é¼fij³q¹L¸Ó¯ó®×¡A¨Ã¤w©ó¦P¦~¤ë¤Q¤é¨ç½Ð¥ßªk°|¼fij¡C
¯÷±N«e´¦¡uµÛ§@Åvªk¡v³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×­nÂI¡A±Ô­z¦p¦¸¡G
¨ä­×¥¿­nÂI¦p¦¸¡G
¤@¡B­ì¤º¬F³¡¥DºÞ¤§µÛ§@Åv¬ÛÃö·~°È¤w²¾¼·¸gÀÙ³¡¥D¬F¡A¬¸°t¦X­×¥¿¥DºÞ¾÷Ãö¤§ÂkÄÝ¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤G±ø¡^
¤G¡B°t¦X¦æ¬Fµ{§Çªk¥Î»y¡A´N¦Xªk¦æ¬F³B¤À¤§¥¢®Ä¡A¦p¨ÌµÛ§@Åvªk²Ä¤»¤Q¤E±ø¨ú±o­µ¼ÖµÛ§@±j¨î±ÂÅv¤§³\¥i«á¡A¥¼¨Ì¥DºÞ¾÷Ãö³\¥i¤§¤è¦¡§Q¥ÎµÛ§@ªÌ¡A±ý¨Ï¨ä®Ä¤O¥¢®Ä¤§¦æ¬F³B¤ÀÀ³¥H¡w¼o¤î¡xºÙ¤§¡F´N¹Hªk¦æ¬F³B¤À¤§¥¢®Ä¡A¦p±j¨î±ÂÅv³\¥i«á¡Aµo²{¨ä¥Ó½Ð¦³µê°°±¡¨ÆªÌ¡A±ý¨Ï¨ä®Ä¤O¥¢®Ä¤§¦æ¬F³B¤À«hÀ³¥H¡wºM¾P¡xºÙ¤§¡A¬¸¤©­×¥¿¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤C¤Q¤@±ø¡^
¤T¡B²{¦æ±ø¤å²Ä¤E¤Q±ø¤§¤@©ÒºÙ¡wºM¾P¬d¦©¡x¡A¨Ì¨ä³W½d¤º®e¤§©Ê½è¦Ó½×¡A«Y«ü®üÃö°ò©óµÛ§@Åv¤H©Î»sª©Åv¤H¤§¥Ó½Ð¡A¹ï¿é¤J©Î¿é¥X«I®`¨äµÛ§@Åv©Î»sª©Åv¤§ª«¤©¥H¬d¦©«á¡A¥t°ò©óªk©w¨Æ¥Ñ¤§µo¥Í¡A¦Ó¥H¥t¤@¦æ¬F³B¤À¨Ï­ì¥ý¦Xªk¬d¦©¤§®Ä¤O²×¤î¡AÀ³ÄÝ¡w¼o¤î¡x¤§·§©À¡A¬¸°t¦X­×¥¿¡F¥t°Ñ·ÓTRIPs²Ä¤­¤Q¤G±ø¤Î²Ä¤­¤Q¥|±ø¤§³W©w¡A·s¼W²Ä¤E¤Q±ø¤§¤@²Ä¤T¶µ©ú©w®üÃö¨ü²zµÛ§@Åv¤H©Î»sª©Åv¤H¬d¦©¤§¥Ó½Ð¤Î¹ê¬I¬d¦©¤§³qª¾¸q°È¡C¡]­×¥¿±ø¤å²Ä¤E¤Q±ø¤§¤@¡^

3.Copyright Law Amendment Submitted to Legislative Yuan


On 10 November 2000, an amendment affecting three articles of the Copyright Law was submitted by the Executive Yuan to the Legislative Yuan. The amendment is intended to ensure that the provisions of the Trademark Law are in conformance with the Law of Administrative Procedure, which is scheduled to be enforced on 1 January 2001. The Executive Yuan has ordered that all administrative agencies review the laws they enforce to make sure that the administrative procedures of these laws are in conformance with the requirements of the Law of Administrative Procedure. Moreover, according to the Central Laws and Regulations Standards Law, procedures which result in decisions infringing on the rights and duties of individuals must be set forth in law. In addition, if a law provides delegation through a regulation restricting individual rights, imposing duties on individuals, or regulating other significant matters, the purpose, contents, and scope of the delegation must be clearly stated.
The principle contents of the amendment are as follows:
a.Revising Article 2 to reflect that the agency in charge of the Law is the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The law had provided that the agency in charge was the Ministry of the Interior;
b.Revising Article 71 in order to conform to terminology used in the Law of Administrative Procedure. The term “cancellation* is used to describe the invalidation of a right when such cancellation is made in an administration proceeding following a legal grant of a right, such as the cancellation of a compulsory license of a musical right according to Article 69 when the work is not exploited in the manner approved by the competent authority. The term “revocation* is used to describe the invalidation of a right when an administration proceeding determines the application for the right violated the law. An example is when it was discovered that an applicant had committed forgery in an application for a compulsory license. 
c.Revising Article 90bis to use the term “cancellation* in place of the term “revocation* to describe the procedure under which a suspension of release order can be lifted. This procedure refers to the ability of copyright owners and plate rights owners to file applications with Customs to suspend the release of goods that the copyright and plate rights owners believe infringe their rights. In addition, paragraph 3 of Article 90bis is revised to require notification of the importer or exporter when applications for suspensions of release orders are filed and when orders are enforced. This revision is intended to conform to Articles 52 and 54 of TRIPs.



¦æ¡@¬F¡@³ø¡@¾É
Administrative Measures and Enforcement

4.´¼¼z§½­×¥¿°Ó¼Ð³W¶O¦¬¶O·Ç«h

°Ó¼Ð³W¶O¦¬¶O·Ç«h¡]¥H¤U²ºÙ¥»·Ç«h¡^¦Û¤K¤Q¤T¦~¤C¤ë¤@¤éµo¥¬¬I¦æ¥H¨Ó¡A§¡¥¼ÀH§Ú°êª«»ù«ü¼Æ¤W¤É¦Ó§@¦X²z¤§½Õ¾ã¡A¥Ø«e°Ó¼Ð¦U¶µ¦¬¶O´¶¹M¸û¥@¬É¥D­n°ê®a¬°§C·G¡A¥B¤£¨¬¤äÀ³¦æ¬F¦¨¥»¡A¤´¥Ñ¬F©²½s¦C¹wºâ¸É¶K¡C°ò©ó°Ó¼Ð±M¥ÎÅv«Y¯S©wÅv§Q¤§¨ú±o¡A¥B¨Ì°]¬F³¡¤K¤Q¤»¦~¤@¤ë¤C¤é¥x°]®w¦r²Ä¤K¤­¤@¤K¤K¤K¤G¤»¤K¸¹¤§¨ç¥Ü¡A¦U¾÷Ãö¦¬¨ú¤§³W¶OÀ³¸¨¹ê¡u¨Ï¥ÎªÌ¡B¨ü¯qªÌ¥I¶O¡v¤§¤½¥­­ì«h¡A¬°¦X²z¤Ï¬M¤½°È¼f¬d¦¨¥»¤Î¥­¿Å¬F©²°]¬F¦¬¤ä¡A¸g®Öºâ°Ó¼Ð¼f¬dª½¡B¶¡±µ¦¨¥»¡A¨Ã°Ñ°uªñ¦~¨Ó§Ú°êª«»ù«ü¼ÆÅܰʱ¡§Î¤Î¥@¬É¥D­n°ê®a¤§¦¬¶O¼Ð·Ç«á¡A¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½¬¸­×¥¿¥»·Ç«h¡A½Õ¾ã¦U¶µ°Ó¼Ð³W¶O¡A½Õ¤É´T«×¦Û¦Ê¤À¤§¤G¤Q¦Ü¦Ê¤À¤§¤»¤Q¤§¶¡¡C­×¥¿«á°Ó¼Ð³W¶O¦¬¶O·Ç«h©ó¥»¡]89¡^¦~11¤ë1¤é¤½§i¡A¨Ã©ó²Ä3±ø²Ä2¶µ©ú©w­×¥¿±ø¤å¦Û90¦~1¤ë1¤é¬I¦æ¡C

4.Increased Trademark Fees Approved

The Intellectual Property Office recently increased trademark fees to become effective on January 1, 2001. The increase in fees ranges from 12% to 60%. The new fee system is distinguished by a new three-tiered system for calculating application fees based on the number of items listed in a trademark registration application.
Trademark fees have not been increased since 1 July 1994 and have not kept pace with inflation. The current trademark fees are lower than those in the major countries and are insufficient to pay administrative costs, thus forcing the IPO to rely on government subsidies to handle trademark matters. The decision to increase fees is also based on considerations that trademarks are special rights awarded by the government and that the government has adopted a general policy of requiring users to pay for services.