TAIWAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Jui-Hua Fan, Hsiang-Yang Hsieh, Chia-Hsin Wu, Chi-Ying Lee and Jin-Han Hsieh, Formosa Transnational Attorneys At Law
Summary This decision represents one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings on comparative advertising under the TFTA in recent years. Although Taiwanese courts have long recognised claims arising from false or misleading comparative advertising, plaintiffs have often encountered consid - erable difficulty in proving the amount of their actu - al losses. By confirming that Article 31 (2) permits damages to be calculated solely by reference to the infringer’s profits, the Supreme Court has substantially reduced the evidentiary burden imposed on injured businesses. The decision is likely to encourage businesses to pur - sue unfair competition claims more actively and may prompt companies to exercise greater caution when designing comparative advertising campaigns. Busi - nesses engaging in comparative advertising should therefore ensure that any performance comparisons, product descriptions, and references to competing products are supported by objective evidence and do not create misleading impressions among consumers. 2. Private Antitrust Claims: Basis and Procedure 2.1 Statutory Basis Statutory Legal Basis for Damage Claims Article 30 of the TFTA provides an express basis for a plaintiff to claim compensatory damages for breach of Taiwanese competition law. Under this provision, if an enterprise violates any provision of the TFTA and thereby infringes upon the rights and interests of another, the aggrieved party may go to civil courts to seek compensatory damages. Injured Parties Required to Establish Elements of Their Claims Follow-on claims are not available in Taiwan’s legal system. Victims (plaintiffs) bear the burden of proof and must establish all the elements for their claims. Even in a situation where the TFTC finds a particular antitrust law violation, the party injured by the viola - tion still has to prove to the courts that the defendant violated the provisions of the TFTA. In other words,
the TFTC’s rulings do not control the findings of courts in relation to whether an alleged violation has in fact occurred. 2.2 Courts There is no specialist competition court or competi - tion judge in Taiwan. However, the antitrust cases will be allocated to the High Court, the IP Court, or the ordinary courts based on different litigations. For administrative litigation, the High Court will have jurisdiction over cases where IP issues are not pre - sent; the IP Court has jurisdiction over cases where IP issues are present. For civil claims, while ordinary courts will have jurisdiction, plaintiffs may go to the IP Court if the subject matter of their claims involves IP issues. Article 7 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules deals with the situation where a party mistak - enly initiates a civil or administrative action in the IP Court but the IP Court does not have jurisdiction. In this circumstance, the IP Court is required to make a ruling that transfers the case to a court with jurisdic - tion in accordance with Article 28 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 18 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Act. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities Non-Binding Nature of TFTC Rulings The TFTC’s rulings do not bind Taiwanese courts that hear cases where antitrust law issues are present. In particular, even if the TFTC has issued a ruling that imposes sanctions upon an alleged offender, in a civil lawsuit initiated by a victim of the alleged offender’s infringing activities, courts will independently examine the plaintiff’s claim without being bound by the TFTC’s findings in its ruling. Likewise, in situations where the TFTC finds no viola - tion of antitrust law provisions, the TFTC’s findings do not preclude Taiwanese courts from rendering differ - ent decisions. Similarly, decisions by foreign antitrust regulators do not bind Taiwanese courts.
191 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook