:::
Judgment by the Taipei High Administrative Court against Wan Ming Chang for improper issuance of copyright infringement warning letters, constituting a conspicuously unfair conduct sufficient to adversely affect trading order, in violation of the Fair Trade Law
Taiwan
Case:
Judgment by the Taipei High Administrative Court against Wan Ming Chang for improper issuance of copyright infringement warning letters, constituting a conspicuously unfair conduct sufficient to adversely affect trading order, in violation of the Fair Trade Law
Keywords:
warning letter, infringement on copyright
Reference:
Taipei High Administrative Court Judgment (92) Su Tzu No. 3432
Relevant Law:
Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law
Summary:
| 1. |
A complaint had been made against the plaintiff, Wan Ming Chang, stating that he improperly issued the copyright infringement warning letters, which contained neither the content, scope, and concrete facts of the infringement nor any expertise report. The plaintiff moreover affixed the warning letter to the bulletin board at an ophthalmology clinic alleging that the complainant infringed upon his copyright. Such an act brought fear to the complainant's major clients and caused them to cease the purchase of goods, in possible violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. After investigation, the defendant found that the plaintiff went beyond the normal exercise of rights by improperly issuing copyright infringement warning letters, which was an obviously unfair conduct sufficient to adversely affect trading order, in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law. The defendant then ordered the plaintiff to immediately cease the aforesaid unlawful act and imposed an administrative fine of NT$ 100,000. The plaintiff did not accept the disposition, and, after filing an appeal that was also rejected later, instituted this administrative action. |
| 2. |
It is found that both plaintiff's legal attest letters of November 6, 2000 and November 28, 2000 did not state the specific content and scope of the copyright clearly enough for the recipient to make reasonable judgment. The two legal attest letters of November 2000 were both sent to Te Chen Hsing, which is a fact not disputed by both parties. However, when determining whether the obligee abuses his/her rights by issuing intellectual property right infringement warning letters and causes unfair competition banned by the Fair Trade Law, one shall focus on whether the substantial content of such letters has warning effects and whether he/she has given notice to the potentially infringing manufacturer, importer, or agent to request for elimination of the infringement in advance. Both legal attest letters indeed contained the warning effects as described above. Also, the plaintiff did not inform the complainant prior to sending the copies of the letters to Te Chen Hsing, which was admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to carry out the obligation to complete the preliminary procedures of notification. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to clearly state the content and scope of his copyright in the aforesaid legal attest letters. He also employed words, such as "counterfeit and sell our company's vision restore equipment that has academic copyright" and "the counterfeit manufactured and sold by you," that might easily mislead people into believing that there is also a possibility of patent right infringement. It is clear that the plaintiff intentionally went beyond the normal range to exercise his rights, an obviously unfair conduct sufficient to adversely affect trading order. To sum up, no credence shall be given to the plaintiff's claims. With regard to the original disposition, with which the defendant ordered the plaintiff to immediately cease the obviously unfair conduct as mentioned above and imposed an administrative fine of NT$ 100,000 in accordance with the fore part of Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law, there was no defect in the determinations of fact or application of law. The disposition was appropriately upheld in the administrative appeal. The plaintiff's administrative action requesting to reverse the administrative appeal decision and the original disposition is in lack of legal grounds and is dismissed. |
Summarized by Lai, Chia-Ching;
Supervised by Wang, Rong-Ging
Appendix:
None
Updated at：2008-12-21 10:49:10
Back