Sectors
Jurisdictions
- Australia
- Brunei
- Cambodia
- China
- Hong Kong
- India
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Laos
- Macau
- Malaysia
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Sri Lanka
- Taiwan
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- East Timor
- Bangladesh
- Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan
- Tajikistan
- Egypt
- Cyprus
- Iran
- Israel
- Lebanon
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Jordan
- Bahrain
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- UAE
- Turkey
- Pacific Islands
- Russia
- France
- UK
- Canada
- USA
- Latin America
- Africa
Examination Guidelines for Disclaimers Released
Issued: November 01 2009Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office released new Examination Guidelines for Disclaimers on November 16, according to lawyers at Jaw-Hwa International Patent & Trademark & Law Offices. The Guidelines go into effect January 1, 2010.
According to the Article 19 of the Trademark Act, a proposed trademark featuring a descriptive or non-distinctive word, sign, symbol, color, or three-dimensional shape, where deletion of that feature will defect the whole of such trademark, may be registered when the applicant disclaims the exclusive right for using the said feature.
“In order to simplify the examination procedures for trademark applications, the examiners may disclaim the indistinctive parts of trademarks ex officio and indicate the said disclaimers in the official gazettes when the trademarks are allowed for registration according to the following examples of indistinctive parts of trademarks,” said lawyers at Jaw-Hwa. “However, if the situations are disputable, the examiners still need to inform the applicants of the same and make overall judgment after reviewing the applicants’ responses.”
The firm offered a number of examples of grounds on which examiners may disclaim indistinctive parts of trademarks, including:
• A generic term used in relation to the designated goods or services. For example, for the mark “ANOSA cosmetics” used on cosmetics, “cosmetics” should be disclaimed.
• One that represents the quality, effect and other characteristics of the goods or services, such as best, deluxe, good quality, fresh, natural, pure, organic or green.
• One’s title, such as master, doctor or Dr.
• Types or ways of providing services, such as internet, online or e-commerce.
• Year or time, such as “Since 1990” or “24H.”
• The nature of a business, such as bank, engineering or telecommunication.
• In the name of a store, terms representing the place of running a business, such as boutique, shop, house, store, mart, plaza, world or shopping mall.
• Religious terms or logos.
• Generic signs, such as the cross sign (“+”) or “Rx” for pharmacists used on medical goods or services.
Related Articles
- Baker & McKenzie Has Elected Isabella Li...
- Submissions now open for the 2015 Asia I...
- CPA Global Has Opened An Office In Seoul
- Indian Courts Render View on the use of ...
An Indian Court has affirmed the principle that the more descriptive the words used for a product, the greater the burden on the party ...
- Division Bench Rules on Numeral 8 Tradem...
- IP Rights Enforcement in Thailand: Does ...
Despite a solid legal and administrative infrastructure and a good working relationship between IP rights holders and local enforcement...
Law Firms
Taiwan
- DEEP & FAR ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
- GIANT GROUP INTERNATIONAL PATENT, TRADEMARK & LAW FIRM
- LEE AND LI, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
- LEXCEL PARTNERS IP CO., LTD. A MEMBER OF LEXGROUP
- LONG RIVER INTERNATIONAL PATENT & TRAD.
- MISSION INTERNATIONAL PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
- TAI E INTERNATIONAL PATENT & LAW OFFICE
- TSAI LEE & CHEN
Most Read Articles
Magazine Issues
Tags
Baker & McKenzie USPTO WIPO DLA Piper Tilleke & Gibbins Anand and Anand TRIPS Delhi High Court Rouse IPOS Remfry & Sagar Hogan Lovells WTO PCT SIPO Spruson & Ferguson KIPO Bird & Bird Lex Orbis EPO Lall Lahiri & Salhotra Krishna & Saurastri Anaqua INTA IPAB JPO Davies Collison Cave patrick mirandah co King & Wood Mallesons AJ Park Kim & Chang Indian Patent Office Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Shearn Delamore & Co Deacons Madrid Protocol Tay & Partners Chang Tsi & Partners Pinsent Masons LLS Lee & Ko Khaitan & Co Blake Dawson USTR K&L Gates Drew & Napier TIPO Allen & Gledhill Griffith Hack Lee and Li