因應智慧財產案件的特性，智慧財產案件審理法第33條允許當事人關於撤銷、廢止商標註冊之行政訴訟中，就同一撤銷或廢止理由於言詞辯論終結前提出新證據，此規定打破了傳統行政訴訟就撤銷訴訟以原行政處分作成時之事實狀態判斷基準時。實務上，不僅是撤銷或廢止商標註冊之行政訴訟，就商標申請註冊案件之行政訴訟提出新證據的比例也相當高，因此引發本文研究商標行政訴訟案件提出新證據認定的範圍與界限。本文針對兩岸商標案件行政訴訟之新證據進行比較，透過實證研究兩岸商標行政訴訟案件之實務現狀。經本文針對兩岸商標行政訴訟案件進行實證研究，就行政訴訟階段提出新證據已為兩岸智慧財產法院或知識產權法院所審酌，惟實證研究發現我國智慧財產案件審理法對於新證據提出不包含商標申請註冊案件與商標法確有扞格，故而本文提出智慧財產案件審理法第33條之修法建議，祈對實務與司法有所助益。
Due to the characters of intellectual property cases, Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act allows the parties, before the end of the oral argument, to present new evidence for the same reasons for revocation or abolition. Article 33 breaks the traditional rule that in a revocation litigation in the field of traditional administrative litigation, the facts are based on the facts at the time when the original decision was made. In practice, not only in the administrative litigation to revoke or abolish the registration of a trademark, but also in the administrative litigation for a trademark application for registration, the proportion of presenting new evidence is quite high. This triggers this study of the limitations about presenting new evidences in trademark administrative litigation. In this study, the laws regarding providing the new evidence in trademark administrative litigation cases in the R.O.C and the P.R.C. are compared and the court judgements of P.R.C. and R.O.C. are also compared to study the current practices in the R.O.C and the P.R.C.. After the comparison between the court judgements in the R.O.C. and the P.R.C., it is found that in practice, both intellectual property courts in both the R.O.C and the P.R.C. consider the new evidences presented in the administrative litigation stages. However, it is also found that the Taiwanese Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and the Taiwanese Trademark Law indeed have contradictions in providing new evidences in the administrative litigation for the trademark application for registration. Therefore, this study proposes suggestions for amendments to Article 33 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act and prays for practical and judicial benefits.
