The appointed lawyer should submit additional grounds for appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, as the appellant is not qualified to articulate the grounds

The Decision

In the absence of the provisions outlined in Article 49-1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, when an appeal is filed with this court against a judgment from the High Administrative Court, a lawyer must submit a brief of grounds for appeal on behalf of the appellant as their litigation agent. This submission is necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Article 244, Paragraphs 1 and 4, and Article 245, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Litigation Law. This requirement serves as a fundamental explanation for the compulsory representation system by lawyers. Consequently, even if the appellant designates a lawyer as the agent ad litem if the lawyer fails to submit a brief of grounds for appeal within 20 days after submitting the Power of Attorney (POA) to this court, the appeal will be deemed invalid. This holds regardless of whether the appellant has submitted a brief of grounds for appeal themselves, as the appellant lacks the capacity to articulate the reasons for the appeal. Therefore, it cannot be considered compliant with the provisions of Article 245, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law, rendering the appeal illegal.

Ching-I Lu’s comment

1.      Article 49-1 of the current Administrative Litigation Law, amended on May 31, 2022, and effective as of August 15, 2023, has been revised to broaden the implementation of a system requiring compulsory representation by lawyers. Specifically, in cases filed with the Supreme Administrative Court, a lawyer must be appointed as the litigation agent.

2.      Accordingly, when a case is appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court regarding trademark registration, opposition, invalidation, or revocation, it is essential to appoint a lawyer as the litigation agent. If the appeal is solely handled by the parties involved, it will be deemed illegal unless a situation specified in Article 49-1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act applies.

3.      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?

4.      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. Consequently, regardless of whether the appellant previously submitted a brief outlining his reasons independently, the appointed lawyer must represent him in this capacity. The lawyer is required to submit another brief of grounds for appeal within 20 days after submitting the Power of Attorney (POA); otherwise, the appeal will be deemed invalid.

5.      The Supreme Administrative Court judged this case in July 2024. Coincidentally, another trademark revocation case was decided in December of the same year (Supreme Administrative Court 113 Shangzi No. 418). The Court determined that the appeal was unlawful for the same reasons and ruled to reject it. Lawyers appointed to handle appeals at the Supreme Administrative Court should not overlook.