Based on the Supreme Court's opinion, multinational companies seeking to enter the Taiwanese market and claim trademark infringement must exercise extreme caution. If their marketing strategy confuses consumers about the source of the products, and the trademark owner has the ability to control quality, it may be determined that their trademark rights have been exhausted, making it challenging to assert trademark infringement in Taiwan. Furthermore, when assessing the relationship between domestic and foreign trademark owners, the court does not require a cooperation agreement or evidence of a parent-subsidiary relationship. Simply relying on information available on a multinational enterprise's website ............

The issue in this case is that after the appellant filed an appeal independently and submitted a brief of grounds for appeal, he subsequently appointed a lawyer as his litigation agent. However, the lawyer did not submit an additional brief of grounds for appeal within the required 20 days. Is the appeal still valid? The question arises: since the appellant has already filed a brief of grounds for appeal, is the lawyer still obligated to submit another brief?

 

  The Supreme Administrative Court clearly explained in this case that, under the system of compulsory legal representation, the appellant is unable to articulate the reasons for the appeal......