The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court rendered a judgment on 30 November 2023, ruling that the copyright registration in China serves as proof of the copyright owner, and the claimant is not required to additionally submit the author's creation document to prove his copyright ownership (111-Min-Chi-Su-68 Civil Judgment). The judgment can be appealed.

 

Since 1985, a work receives copyright protection in Taiwan upon its completion, and copyright registration is no longer a condition to receive such protection. In 1998, the voluntary copyright recordation was further abolished. In order to reduce a copyright owner's burden of proof, Article 13 of the Copyright Act adopts a mechanism to shift the burden of proof. If a person's name is stated as the copyright owner or a publication date or place is stated in an ordinary way on the reproductions of a work or when the work is published, the copyright of the work will be presumed to belong to such person and the work will be presumed to be published on such date or in such place. Notwithstanding this provision, there is no standard way to state such information. In addition, if a defendant produces any evidence to prove the contrary, the plaintiff would still bear the burden of proof and thus should submit documents on the creation process or other proof of the authorship or copyright ownership.

 

Some countries issue copyright registration certificates. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office points out that such certificates are for courts' reference only and do not shift the burden of proof as they are not stipulated under Article 13 of the Copyright Act.

 

However, in a judgment rendered by the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court in 2020, the court held that the copyright registration certificates issued in other countries have the effect of shifting the burden of proof. The court ruled that although a work cannot be regarded as satisfying the independent creation requirement simply based on a copyright registration in the USA, the appellant could be presumed to enjoy copyright based on such registration. Any third party may prove the contrary to rebut the appellant's claim for the copyright ownership and the independent creation (108-Min-Chi-Shang-5 Civil Judgment).

 

Another earlier judgment rendered by the Intellectual Property Court in 2015 (103-Shing-Chi-Shang-Yi-56 Criminal Judgment) states that the claimant is the copyright owner based on its US copyright registration. However, after reviewing the program at issue and its Dutch version based on which the program was produced, the court concluded that the program should not receive copyright protection because it is substantially similar to its Dutch version and its content or expression did not demonstrate minimum creativity.