ARTICLE
21 March 2016

Trademark Sole License Not Definitely Equivalent To Exclusive License

LL
Lee & Li
Contributor
Lee & Li
The Intellectual Property Court pointed out in a civil litigation against trademark infringement that the exclusive license should be limited to the situations where the trademark owner will not use the licensed trademark.
Taiwan Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Trademark Act stipulates that an exclusive licensee is entitled, within the scope of the license, to exclude the proprietor and any third party from using the registered trademark, and that unless otherwise prescribed in a licensing contract, an exclusive licensee is entitled, within the scope of the license, to bring infringement proceedings in his/her own name.

Whether the so-called "sole license" is an "exclusive license" is a controversial issue.

The Intellectual Property Court pointed out in a civil litigation against trademark infringement that the exclusive license should be limited to the situations where the trademark owner will not use the licensed trademark. The IP Court took an even stricter view on the definition of the exclusive licensee and held that the wording of exclusive or its equivalent should be indicated in the license agreement. The situation where the trademark owner guarantees only granting one licensee is just a "sole-license", which should not be defined as "exclusive" license.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
21 March 2016

Trademark Sole License Not Definitely Equivalent To Exclusive License

Taiwan Intellectual Property
Contributor
Lee & Li
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More