¤E¨÷¤Q´Á¡@90¦~05¤ë31¤é

¥»¡@´Á¡@´£¡@­nHEADLINES

µÛ§@Åvªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×
IPO Releases Second Draft of Copyright Law Amendment
¿Dªù©~¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@¦b°ê¤º¨É¦³µÛ§@Åv«OÅ@
Macao Works Receive Copyright Protection in Taiwan
¤èªk±M§Q»Pª««~±M§Q«IÅv¶D³^¤§Á|ÃÒ³d¥ô
IPO Issues Explanation on Burden of Producing Evidence in Patent Litigation Cases
¥Ó½Ð°Ó¼Ðµù¥U¸óÃþ«ü©w°Ó«~¤§³B²z­ì«h
IPO Announces Trademark Regulations Regarding Multiple Classes of Goods 
¤½¥­·|­º©v¥Hcarrefour·mµùºô°ì¦WºÙ¹H¤Ï¤½¥­ªk®×¨ÒRegistration of Domain Name Found to be Violation of Fair Trade Law
¤£·í¥éŧ¥L¨Æ·~¡u¥Ö¥d¥C¡v°Ó«~¥~Æ[¨ãÄvª§­Û²z«DÃø©Ê
FTC Finds Violation in Pokeman Case

µÛ§@Åvªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×

¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´¡]WIPO¡^©ó¥Á°ê¤K¤Q¤­¦~¤Q¤G¤ë©³³q¹L¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´µÛ§@Åv±ø¬ù¡v¤Î¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´ªíºt¤Î¿ý­µª«±ø¬ù¡vµ¥¤G¶µ°ê»Ú±ø¬ù¡A§Y¦b¦]À³¼Æ¦ì¤Æºô»Úºô¸ô¬ì§Þ¹ï¶Ç²ÎµÛ§@Åvªk¨î©Ò²£¥Í¤§¦U¶µ½ÄÀ»¡C
¦Ó§Ú°ê©ó¥Á°ê¤K¤Q¤C¦~¤@¤ë¤G¤Q¤@¤é­×¥¿¬I¦æ¤§²{¦æµÛ§@Åvªk¡A«Y°t¦X¥[¤JWTO¡A²Å¦XWTO TRIPS³W©w¬°¥D­n­×¥¿¥Øªº¡F±©¹ï©ó¼Æ¦ì¤Æºô»Úºô¸ô¬ì§Þµo®i«á©Ò²£¥Í¤§¦U¶µÄ³ÃD¡A©|¥¼¤Î§@¾A·í¤§½Õ¾ã¡C
¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½¬°«P¶i¸ê°T¶Ç¼½»P¹q¤l°Ó°È¤§½´«kµo®i¡A´£ª@µÛ§@¤H©ó¼Æ¦ì¤Æºô»Úºô¸ô¬ì§ÞÀô¹Ò¤¤¤§«OÅ@¡A²Å¦X°ê»ÚµÛ§@Åvªk¨î¤§µo®iÁͶաA¥t¨Ì¾Ú¹ê°È¸gÅç¡A¬¸ÀÀ­qµÛ§@Åvªk³¡¤À±ø¤å­×¥¿¯ó®×¡C¸Ó§½©ó¥»¡q¤E¤Q¡r¦~¤­¤ë¥|¤é¤½¶}¥»¯ó®×¡]²Ä¤G½Z¡^¡A¤Wºô¤½¶}¤©¦U¬É¼x¸ß·N¨£¡A¨Ã¹w­p¤»¤ë¤W¦¯¥l¶}¤½Å¥·|¡C¥»¯ó®×­p¤G¤Q¤­±ø¡A¨ä¤¤­×¥¿¤G¤Q±ø¡A¼W­q¤­±ø¡A­×¥¿­nÂI¦p¦¸¡G
œA¼W­q¤½¶}¶Ç¼½Åv¨Ã­×¥¿¤½¶}¼½°e¤Î¤½¶}ºt¥X¤§©w¸q¡G
¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´µÛ§@Åv±ø¬ù¡v²Ä¤K±ø³W©w¡AµÛ§@¤HÀ³¨É¦³¤½¶}¶Ç¼½Åv¡A¨ä¤º®e¨Ã¤Î©ó¤¬°Ê¦¡¶Ç¼½¤Î¹ï¤½²³´£¨ÑµÛ§@¤§Åv§Q¡A¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´ªíºt¤Î¿ý­µª«±ø¬ù¡v²Ä¤Q±ø¤Î²Ä¤Q¥|±ø³W©w¡Aªíºt¤H¤Î¿ý­µª«»s§@¤HÀ³¨É¦³¹ï¤½²³´£¨Ñ¨äªíºt¤Î¿ý­µª«¤§Åv§Q¡C¤S²{¦æµÛ§@Åvªk²Ä¤T±ø²Ä¤@¶µ²Ä¤E´ÚÃö©ó¡u¤½¶}ºt¥X¡v¤§©w¸q»P§B®¦¤½¬ù²Ä¤Q¤@±ø¤§¤@¡u¤½¶}¼½°e¡v¤§©w¸q©|¦³®t¶Z¡A¬¸¼W­q¤½¶}¶Ç¼½Åv¨Ã­×¥¿¤½¶}¼½°e¤Î¤½¶}ºt¥X¤§©w¸q¡A
¨Ã¼W©w¹L´ç±ø¤å¡C
œB¼W­q¬ì§Þ«OÅ@±¹¬I¤Î¹q¤l¤ÆµÛ§@ÅvÅv§QºÞ²z¸ê°T«OÅ@³W©w¡G
¼Æ¦ì¤Æºô»Úºô¸ô¬ì§Þ¤§Àô¹Ò¤U¡AµÛ§@Åv¤H¬°«OÅ@¨äÅv§Q
¡A±`¥H¬ì§Þ«OÅ@±¹¬I«OÅ@¨äµÛ§@¡AÁקK³Q«Dªk§Q¥Î¡C¦Ó¥ô¦ó´£¨Ñ¦UºØ¤è¦¡¥H³WÁ׸ӵ¥¬ì§Þ«OÅ@±¹¬IªÌ¡AÁö¥¼ª½±µ¬°«I®`µÛ§@Åv¤§¦æ¬°¡A±©¹ï©óµÛ§@Åv¤§«I®`¦³«P¶i¡B»²§U¤§®ÄªG¡AÀ³¤©¹K¤î¡C¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´µÛ§@Åv±ø¬ù¡v²Ä¤Q¤@±ø¤Î¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´ªíºt¤Î¿ý­µª«

±ø¬ù¡v²Ä¤Q¤K±ø³W©w¡A¹ï¦¹±¡§ÎÀ³§@¾A·í¤§³W©w¥H«O»ÙµÛ§@Åv¡A¨Ã´£¨Ñ¦³®Ä¤§ªk«ß±ÏÀÙ¡C¤S©ó¼Æ¦ì¤ÆÀô¹Ò¤U¡AµÛ§@Åv¤H´N¨äµÛ§@±`ªþ°O¦³¹q¤l¤ÆµÛ§@ÅvÅv§QºÞ²z¸ê°T¡A¦p¥[¥H§R°£©Î«§ï¡A¹ïÅv§Q¤H±N³y¦¨ÄY­«·l®`¡F¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´µÛ§@Åv±ø¬ù¡v²Ä¤Q¤G±ø¤Î¡u¥@¬É´¼¼z°]²£Åv²Õ´ªíºt¤Î¿ý­µª«±ø¬ù¡v²Ä¤Q¤E±ø³W©w¡A¤D­n¨DÀ³¤©¾A·í¤Î¦³®Ä¤§«OÅ@¤Î±ÏÀÙ¡A¬¸¼W­q¬ÛÃö³W©w¡A¥H²Å¦X±ø¬ù³W©w¡C
œC¼W­qµÛ§@°]²£Åv±ÂÅv«á¤§®ÄªG¤Î±MÄݱÂÅv³Q±ÂÅv¤H¤§ªk«ß¦a¦ì¡G
µÛ§@°]²£Åv¤H¬°µÛ§@°]²£Åv¤§±ÂÅv«á¡A±N¨äµÛ§@°]²£ÅvÅý»P©Î¦A¬°±ÂÅv¡A­×¥¿¬°­ì³Q±ÂÅv¤H¤§Åv§Q¤£¨ü¼vÅT¡F¤S¼W­q±MÄݱÂÅv¤§³Q±ÂÅv¤H¦b³Q±ÂÅv½d³ò¤º¡A±o¥HµÛ§@°]²£Åv¤H¤§¦a¦ì¦æ¨ÏÅv§Q¡A¨Ã°Ñ»PµÛ§@Åv¥ò¤¶¹ÎÅ餧²Õ¦¨©Î¥[¤J¸Óµ¥¹ÎÅéµ¥¡C
œD­×­q¦X²z¨Ï¥Î³W©w¡G
¦]À³¹q¸£ºô¸ô§Q¥Î§ÎºA©Ò¼W­q¤§¡u¤½¶}¶Ç¼½¡v¡A±N²{¦æ¡u¤½¶}¼½°e¡v¤§ºA¼Ë¥]¬A¦b¤º¡A¨Ã°t¦X±N²{¦æ¯A¤Î¤½¶}¼½°e¤§¦X²z¨Ï¥Î¬ÛÃö±ø¤å§@¾A·í­×¥¿¡C¥tÃö©ó¡u²Ä¤@¦¸¾P°â²z½×¡v¤§¾A¥Î½d³ò¤è­±¡A¨Ã­×¥¿ÂX¤Î©óµÛ§@­ì¥ó¡C
œE¼W­q»sª©Åv¤§Åý»P©Î«H°Uµn°O³W©w¡G
²{¦æµÛ§@Åvªk²Ä¤C¤Q¤E±ø¹ï©ó»sª©Åv¤§¨ú±o©T±Äµn°O¥D¸q¡A±©Ãö©ó»sª©Åv¤§Åý»P©Î«H°U¡A«hµLµn°O¤§³W©w¡A¬°°t¦X«H°Uªk²Ä¥|±ø²Ä¤@¶µ¤§³W©w¡A¬¸¼W­q»sª©Åv¤§Åý»P©Î«H°Uµn°O³W©w¡C
œF§R°£µÛ§@Åv¼fij¤Î½Õ¸Ñ©e­û·|¿ì²zµÛ§@Åv¥ò¤¶¹ÎÅé©Ò­q©w¨Ï¥Î³ø¹S²v¤§¼fij³W©w¡G
¦^Âk¥Áªk¨pªk¦Ûªv¤Î¥«³õ¾÷¯à¤§ºë¯«¡A§R°£«e´¦³W©w¡A¦Ó¥Ñ¥ò¤¶¹ÎÅé»P§Q¥Î¤HÂù¤è¦Û¥Ñ¨ó°Ó¬¢½Í¨M©w¡C
œG«I®`µÛ§@Åv®×¥ó¦D³d¤§ÀË°Q¡G
±N²{¦æªk²Ä¤E¤Q¤@±ø²Ä¤@¶µ©Ò©w¤§¤@¯ë­«»s¸o¨Ö¤J²Ä¤E¤Q¤G±ø¡A»P¨ä¥L«I®`µÛ§@Åv¤§¥Ç¦æ³B¥H¬Û¦P¤§¸o³d¡A¨ÃÂX¤j·N¹ÏÀç§Q¦Ó¥H­«»s¤§¤èªk«I®`¥L¤HµÛ§@°]²£Åv¤§³B»@½d³ò¡F¥tÃö©ó«I®`µÛ§@¤H®æÅv¤§¦æ¬°¡A«h¤©¥H°£¸o¤Æ¡C

IPO Releases Second Draft of Copyright Law Amendment

On 4 May 2001, the Intellectual Property Office released a second draft of proposed amendments to the Copyright Law.
The amendment is aimed primarily at updating the law due to the rapid development of electronic commerce and the internet. The amendment is also needed in order to bring the law into conformance with the require ments of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which were approved by the World Intellectual Property Organization in December 1996.
The most recent amendment of Taiwan's Copyright Law was enforced on 21 January 1998. The revisions made at that time were a result of Taiwan's efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization by making the Copyright Law conform to the requirements of WTO TRIPs. 
The IPO has posted the current draft amendment on the internet and is soliciting public comment. Public hearings on the proposed changes will be held in June 2001. 
A total of 25 articles of the Copyright Law would be altered by the proposed amendment. Twenty articles would be revised while five articles would be added. The highlights of the amendment are as follows:
a.Adding Right of Public Transmission and Revising the Definitions of Public Broadcast and Public Performance
Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty provides that authors enjoy the right to communicate their works to the public as well as rights regarding interactive communication of their works to the public. Articles 10 and 14 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty provide that performers and producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of making available to the public their phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. 
There are still some differences between Taiwan's current definition of "public performance", as found in Article 3-1-9 of the Copyright Law, and the definition of "public communication" under Article 11bis of the Berne Convention. As a result, the draft amendment adds the right of "public transmission" and revises the definitions of public broadcast and public performance, as well as adding transitional rovisions.
b. Adding Provisions Regarding Technological Protection Measures and Electronic Rights Management Information.
In the age of the in ternet and digital works, copyright owners commonly attach rights management information to their works in order to protect their rights. The removal or alteration ofthis information, while not directly an act of infringement, has the effect of facilitating infringement. 
Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 18 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require that adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circum vention of effective technological measures be provided.
Moreover, the deletion or alteration of rights management information attached by copyright owners to their works can seriously impair the rights of copyright owners. Article 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Article 19 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require that adequate and effective legal remedies be provided in order to prevent the removal or alteration of electronic rights management information.
In order to comply with these two treaties, the amendment includes protection and remedies regarding technological measures and electronic rights management nformation.
c.Adding Rights for Licensees
In order to protect the interests of licensees, a provision is added stating that their licensed rights shall be not be effected due to the transfer or further icensing of the rights by the economic rights owner. Another provision provides that within the scope of a license, an exclusive licensee may exercise the rights of the economic rights owner as well as join copyright intermediary associations 
d.Amending Reasonable UseThe current right of public transmission includes the right of public broadcast. Because the right of public transmission will be stated separately under the amendment, provisions regarding the reasonable use of publicly broadcast works must also be amended. In addition, the scope of the First Sale Doctrine is expanded to original copies of works.
e. Adding Provisions Regarding Plate Right Registrations Under the current law, a registration system is adopted for plate rights under Article 79 of the Copyright Law. There is, however, no provisions regarding for registration when plate rights are transferred or placed in trust. In order to confirm to Article 41 of the Trust Law, the amendment adds provisions regarding such transfers or placements in trust. 
f.Deleting Provisions Regarding Copyright Review and Mediation Committees Provisions regarding the duties of Copyright Review and Mediation Committees to examine the rates of compensation for copyright intermediary associations are deleted. The determination of such rates instead will instead be left to negotiations between copyright intermediary organizations and copyright users. The intent of this change is to let free market forces determine the compensation rates.
g.Revising Criminal ProvisionsThe crime of reproducing works without authorization that is currently provided governed by Article 911 will be placed in Article 92 in order that all types of copyright infringement will be subject to the same criminal penalties. In addition, punishments are expanded for infringers who reproduce works on a commercial basis. In addition, the infringement of moral rights will not be subject to criminal sanctions.
2¿Dªù©~¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@¦b°ê¤º¨É¦³µÛ§@Åv«OÅ@

¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½¨Ì¾Ú­»´ä¿DªùÃö«Y±ø¨Ò²Ä¤T¤Q¤»±ø²Ä¤G´Ú³W©w¡A©ó¤é«e¤½§i¿Dªù©~¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@¡A¦Û¤K¤Q¤E¦~¤E¤ë¤Q¥|¤é°_¦b¥xÆW¦a°Ï±o¨ÌµÛ§@Åvªk¨É¦³µÛ§@Åv¡C
­»´ä¿DªùÃö«Y±ø¨Ò²Ä¤T¤Q¤»±ø²Ä¤G´Ú³W©w¡A¨Ì±ø¬ù¡B¨ó©w
¡B¨óij©Î¿Dªù¤§ªk¥O©ÎºD¨Ò¡A¥xÆW¦a°Ï¤H¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@±o¦b¿Dªù¨É¦³µÛ§@ÅvªÌ¡A¿Dªù©~¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@¦b»OÆW¦a°Ï±o¨ÌµÛ§@Åvªk¨É¦³µÛ§@Åv¡C
¿Dªù¯S°Ï¬F©²·~©ó¤K¤Q¤E¦~¤E¤ë¤Q¥|¤é«ö¦³Ãöªk«ßµ¹¤©»OÆW¦a°Ï©~¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@¦b¿Dªù¨É¦³µÛ§@Åv«OÅ@¡A¿Dªù©~¥Á©Îªk¤H¤§µÛ§@¨Ì«e¶µ³W©w¡A¦Û¤K¤Q¤E¦~¤E¤ë¤Q¥|¤é°_¦b»OÆW¦a°Ï±o¨ÌµÛ§@Åvªk¨É¦³µÛ§@Åv¡C

Macao Works Receive Copyright Protection in Taiwan

The Intellectual Property Office recently announced that works by Macao natural and legal persons received copyright protection in Taiwan as of 14 September 2000.
The decision was based upon Article 362 of the Hong Kong and Macao Relations Act, which provides that Macao natural and legal persons would be protected in Taiwan if according to treaty, agreement, or under Macao law, regulation or practice, works of natural or legal persons of Taiwan enjoy copyright protection in Macao.
The Macao Special Administrative Region government on 14 September 2000 afforded copyright protection in Macao for works of Taiwan natural and legal persons. As a result, under Article 362, works by Macao natural or legal persons enjoy protection in Taiwan from the same date. 
¤èªk±M§Q»Pª««~±M§Q«IÅv¶D³^¤§Á|ÃÒ³d¥ô

¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½©ó¥Á°ê¤E¤Q¦~¤T¤ë¤G¤Q¤@¤éÄÀ©ú¡u¤èªk±M§Q¡v»P¡uª««~±M§Q¡v«IÅv¶D³^Á|ÃÒ³d¥ô¤§°Ï§O¡A¨Ãªí¥Ü¹ê»Ú±M§Q«IÅv¤§ª§³^¡A¨Æ¯A¥qªk¾÷Ãö¾Åv¡A¤´À³¥Ñ¥qªk¾÷Ãö¨Ìªk»{©w¤§¡C
¸Ó§½ªí¥Ü¦³Ãö¤èªk±M§Q¡A©ó«IÅv¶D³^®É¡A­Y¨Ì¸Ó±M§Q¤èªkª½±µ»s±oª««~¤§§Îª¬¡Bºc³y©Î¸Ë¸m«DÄݲߪ¾¡A¦Ó±M§QÅv¤H¥D±i³Q§i¬ÛÃöª««~«Y¨Ì¸Ó¨ä±M§Q¤èªkª½±µ»s±o¤§ª««~®É¡A
­ì«h¤W¡AÀ³¥Ñ³Q§iÁ|ÃÒÃÒ©ú¨ä«Y¥H¨ä¥L¤èªk©Ò»s±o¤§ª««~
¡A¨ÃµL¤£·í¨Ï¥Î±M§Q¤èªk¤§¨Æ¹ê¡C
¤Ï¤§¡A­Y¨Ì¸Ó±M§Q¤èªkª½±µ»s±oª««~¤§§Îª¬¡Bºc³y©Î¸Ë¸m«YÄݲߪ¾¡A«h±M§QÅv¤H»Ý­tÁ|ÃÒ³d¥ô¡AÃÒ©ú³Q§i¦³¨Ï¥Î¸Ó¨tª§±M§Q¤èªk¤§¨Æ¹ê¡C
¦Ü©óª««~±M§Q¡A©ó«IÅv¶D³^®É¡A­ì«h¤W¡AÀ³¥Ñ­ì§i¡]§Y±M§QÅv¤H©Î¨ä±MÄݳQ±ÂÅv¤H¡^Á|ÃÒÃÒ©ú³Q§i«IÅv¦æ¬°¤§¬ÛÃöª««~«Y»P¨äª««~±M§Q¤§Åv§Q½d³ò¹ê½è¬Û¦P¡C

IPO Issues Explanation on Burden of Producing Evidence in Patent Litigation Cases
The Intellectual Property Office on 21 March 2001 issued an explanation regarding the duty of parties in process patent and product patent infringement cases to produce evidence in litigation. 
The IPO stated that, in principle, the defendant in process patent litigation has the burden to produce evidence that the products were manufactured using a different process if the products manufactured from the patented process are of an appearance, construction, or contain a device not usually known and if the patent owner argues that the defendant's products were manufactured according to the patented process.
However, if the appearance, construction, or contained devices of the product manufactured from the patent process are commonly known, the patent owner has the burden of providing evidence that the defendant used the patented process.
The IPO explained that in product patent litigation, in principle, the burden is on the plaintiff (i.e. the patent owner or a licensee of the patent owner) to show that the goods produced by the defendant are within the scope of the patent.
The IPO stated that its positions on the production of evidence were not binding because courts are the final authority in actual patent infringement lawsuits.

¥Ó½Ð°Ó¼Ðµù¥U¸óÃþ«ü©w°Ó«~¤§³B²z­ì«h
¸gÀÙ³¡´¼¼z°]²£§½©ó¥Á°ê¤E¤Q¦~¥|¤ë¤Q¤»¤é¤½§i¡u¥Ó½Ð°Ó¼Ðµù¥U¸óÃþ«ü©w°Ó«~¤§³B²z­ì«h¡v¡C«ö¸Ó³B²z­ì«h¡A¥Ó½Ð¤H¨Ì°Ó¼Ðªk²Ä¤T¤Q¤­±ø²Ä¤@¡B¤G¶µ¤Î¬I¦æ²Ó«h²Ä¤G¤Q¤C±ø²Ä¤T¶µµ¥³W©w¡A¥H¥Ó½Ð®Ñ©ú½T¸ü©ú°Ó¼Ð¹Ï¼Ë¤Î°Ó«~¦WºÙ¡A¨Ã«ü©w°Ó«~Ãþ§O¡A¦V¸Ó§½´£¥X¥Ó½Ð®É¡A§Y¬°¨ä¥Ó½Ðµù¥U¤§®É¡A¦Ü©ó©Ò«ü©w°Ó«~­Y¦³¸óÃþ±¡¨Æ¡A¦]¤´ÄÝ­ì¥Ó½Ð®×¤§·N«äªí¥Ü½d³ò¡A¶È¹H­IÀ³¤À§O¥Ó½Ð¤§µ{§Ç³W©w¡A¦]¦¹­Y¥Ó½Ð¤H¸É¥¿¥LÃþ§O¤§³W¶O¤Î¥Ó½Ð®Ñ¡A¨ä¥Ó½Ð¤éÀ³¤£¨ü¼vÅT¡C
¦Ó¦P¤@¤H¥H¦P¤@°Ó¼Ð¹Ï¼Ë¦P®É¥Ó½Ð¤£¦PÃþ§O¤§°Ó¼Ðµù¥U¡A
­Y¨ä¤¤¤§¤@¥Ó½Ð®×¥Ò©Ò¸óÃþ«ü©w¤§°Ó«~¡A«YÄÝ¥t¤@¥Ó½Ð®×¤A©Ò«ü©w°Ó«~¤§Ãþ§OªÌ¡A±o¥H§ó¥¿¤§¤è¦¡¡A©ó¥Ò®×§R°£¸Ó¤£ÄÝ©ó¦PÃþ¤§°Ó«~¦WºÙ¡A¨Ã©ó¤A®×¸É¥¿À³ÂkÄÝ©ó¦PÃþ¤§¸Óµ¥°Ó«~¦WºÙ¡AÀ³¤£¼vÅT¨ä¥Ó½Ð¤é¡A¨ÃµL±e¥t®×ú¯Ç³W¶O¡C±©­Y¦]¦¹¨Ï¥Ó½Ð®×¤A©Ò«ü©w¤§°Ó«~¶W¹L­ìú¯Ç³W¶O¤§¯Å¶ZªÌ¡AÀ³¨Ìªk¸Éú©Ò·s¼W«ü©w°Ó«~¦WºÙ¯Å¶Z¤§³W¶O¡A¤£»Ýú¯ÇÅܧó¶O¥Î¡C

IPO Announces Trademark Regulations Regarding Multiple Classes of Goods 

On 16 April 2001, the Intellectual Property Office announced trademark regulations governing the designation of goods in multiple classes. Pursuant to the se regulations, if an applicant files a single appli cation listing products that are in multiple classes, the applicant may maintain the application date if the applicant pays the proper fees and files separate applications for the other classes, provided if the applicant's only error was not to follow the correct procedure in initially filing separate applications.
If an applicant applies for multiple registrations of the same trademark design in different classes of goods, but some of the designated goods in one applic ation belong in another application, the applicant may amend the applications without affecting the application dates and without being required to pay additional application fees. However, if by adding products to an application resulting in that amended application exceeding the fee for the original number of goods applied for, a fee shall be due for the extra goods but not assessed for the amendment of the appl ication.
¤½¥­·|­º©v¥Hcarrefour·mµùºô°ì¦WºÙ¹H¤Ï¤½¥­ªk®×¨Ò

¦æ¬F°|¤½¥­¥æ©ö©e­û·|©ó¤K¤Q¤E¦~¤G¤ë¤G¤Q¤T¤é²Ä¥|¤T¤T¦¸©e­û·|ij¤¤¡A°Q½×«³©ý¹q¸£¦³­­¤½¥q³QÀËÁ|¨Ï¥Î®aºÖªÑ¥÷¦³­­¤½¥q°Ó¼Ð¦WºÙ¡ucarrefour¡v¬°ºô°ì¦WºÙ¡A¯A¶û¹H¤Ï¤½¥­¥æ©öªk®×¡A¨Mij«³©ý¹q¸£¦³­­¤½¥q¥H¥L¤H©Ò¦³¤§¬ÛÃö¨Æ·~©Î®ø¶OªÌ©Ò´¶¹M»{ª¾¤§ªí¼x¡Aµù¥U¬°ºô»Úºô¸ôºô°ì¦WºÙ¡Aªýê­ìªí¼x©Ò¦³¤H¶i¤Jºô»Úºô¸ô¥«³õª§¨ú¥æ©ö¤§¾÷·|¡A¹H¤ÏÄvª§®Ä¯à¡A¬°¨¬¥H¼vÅT¥æ©ö¯´§Ç¤§Å㥢¤½¥­¦æ¬°¡A¹H¤Ï¤½¥­¥æ©öªk²Ä¤G¤Q¥|±ø³W©w¡C 

Registration of Domain Name Found to be Violation of Fair Trade Law

On 23 February 2000, the Fair Trade Commission announced that the use of the English trademark "Carrefour" owned by Carrefour Co., Ltd. by Yihsi Computer Co. Ltd. as a website address violated Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. The FTC ruled that Yihsin had registered as a domain name a mark owned by a third party thereby preventing that party's ability to exploit business opportunities by using that mark on the internet. As a result, the FTC found that the action constituted an unfair act capable of affecting trading order.
¤£·í¥éŧ¥L¨Æ·~¡u¥Ö¥d¥C¡v°Ó«~¥~Æ[¨ãÄvª§­Û²z«DÃø©Ê

¦æ¬F°|¤½¥­¥æ©ö©e­û·|©ó¥»¡]¤E¤Q¡^¦~¤G¤ë¤G¤Q¤G¤é²Ä¥|¤K¤­¦¸©e­û·|ij¨Mij¡A´f²M¶T©ö¦³­­¤½¥q©ó¶i¤f¡B³c°â¤£·í§Ûŧ¡u¥Ö¥d¥C¡v°Ó«~¤§¥~Æ[¡B§Îª¬¡A¬°¨¬¥H¼vÅT¥æ©ö¯´§Ç¤§Å㥢¤½¥­¦æ¬°¡A¹H¤Ï¤½¥­¥æ©öªk²Ä¤G¤Q¥|±ø³W©w¡C¤½¥­·|´_ªí¥Ü¡A¥»®×ªº­«ÂI¦b©óµL¿n·¥ºÂ§O©¼§Ú°Ó«~¤§¥~Æ[©Î§Îª¬¡A¥B¨ã¤£·í¥éŧ¥L¤H°Ó«~¥~Æ[¤§Ävª§­Û²z«DÃø©Ê¡C

FTC Finds Violation in Pokeman Case

On 22 February 2001, the Fair Trade Commission ruled that Huiching Trading Company Ltd. violated the Fair Trade Law by importing and selling products with the same appearance and shape of the Pokeman cartoon figure. The FTC ruled that selling the products was sufficient to constitute obviously unfair acts capable of affecting trading order and thus constitute violations of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. The FTC stated that the key point of the case was not whether the appearance or shape of the two products was suffi ciently similar, rather it was that the act of copying the appearance of another's product was unfair competition.