According to reports in the Chinese language media, National Development Council (NDC) Minister Duh Tyzz-Jiun has announced that Taiwan will begin issuing entrepreneurial visas to foreign nationals from July, in a bid to attract talent, strengthen Taiwan’s startup ecosystem and create jobs.
2,000 visas a year will be available to foreign nationals (including nationals of Hong Kong and Macau), which come with one year of residence. Extensions of a further two years are available to those entrepreneurs who can provide evidence of operating a bona fide business, such as registering a business or generating revenue. Entrepreneurs who lawfully reside in Taiwan for five years are then eligible for permanent residency.
The report notes that other countries such as Chile, South Korea, Canada, Singapore and the UK have issued similar plans. The NDC has been charged with developing Taiwan’s startup ecosystem under the Headstart Taiwan project, with the aim to assist entrepreneurs through deregulation, attracting investment and developing startup clusters, most notably Taiwan Startup Stadium. For more on the Headstart Taiwan project please visit the NDC’s website.
Taiwan’s Supreme Court recently affirmed in Shending Law Firm v. Tien Chin Yu Machinery Mfg. Co., Ltd. Chinese judgments and arbitral awards do not have res judicata effect even if they are recognized by the Taiwanese courts. 104 Taishang Zi No. 33. In contrast, foreign judgments and arbitral awards (including those from Hong Kong and Macau) are routinely recognized and enforced.
Tien Chin Yu (“TCY”) is a Taiwanese manufacturer of flexographic printing and corrugator machinery. In 2003, it retained a law firm in Guangdong, China to act for it in litigation against a printing company in Dongguan.
The law firm’s engagement agreement provided that if TCY terminated the representation for any reason other than the law firm’s malfeasance or a breach of the agreement, TCY would have to return any funds advanced by the law firm plus 20% of the amount of TCY’s claim. According to TCY, the law firm failed to keep it informed during the course of the litigation. Although TCY eventually prevailed on some claims but not on others, it decided not to appeal and terminated the representation.
The law firm demanded its fees under the agreement’s 20% termination penalty and submitted the dispute to CIETAC’s South China Sub-Commission pursuant to the agreement’s arbitration clause. The law firm prevailed in the CIETAC proceedings and was awarded about US$110,000 in damages.
The Taoyuan District Court in northern Taiwan duly recognized the CIETAC award in 2009, rejecting TCY’s contentions that the award violated public policy in Taiwan. After the Taiwan High Court upheld the District Court’s recognition of the Chinese arbitral award the law firm applied for compulsory enforcement of the award in the Taoyuan District Court’s enforcement division. In response, TCY filed an action asserting objections concerning the claim itself as established by the judgment (zhaiwuren yiyi zhi su) in the Taoyuan District Court’s civil division (this statutory cause of action has its roots in German law).
In general, an action objecting to the claim itself as established by the judgment is precluded from raising claims germane to the underlying action by Taiwan’s version of res judicata. This res judicata effect is well established for not only Taiwanese final judgments, but also recognized final foreign judgments and arbitral awards as well as. It bars the claimant from raising any claim that was or should have been raised by the time of final oral arguments. As a result, the judgment debtor in these circumstances is normally limited to raising objections based on new facts that arose after final oral arguments such as a post-judgment satisfaction.
However, TCY’s action attempted to raise defenses such as the illegality of the 20% penalty clause under Taiwan law and the unreasonableness of the legal fees. While the Taoyuan District Court and the Taiwan High Court dismissed TCY’s action on grounds that a Chinese arbitral award should have res judicata effect once it has been recognized by the Taiwanese courts, the Supreme Court held for TCY and remanded the case back the lower courts for a decision on the merits of TCY’s defenses to the underlying claim.
The Supreme Court reasoned that when the Taiwan Legislature enacted Article 74 of the the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, it intended that a judgment or arbitral award from China could serve as a writ of execution if recognized by a Taiwanese court but not as a final judgment. In other words, a judgment or arbitral award from China is enforceable through the compulsory execution process but it does not have the same res judicata effect as a final Taiwanese judgment or arbitral award.
The Supreme Court based this distinction on a close reading of the statutory language used in Article 74 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. This language differs from the language in the Civil Code and the Compulsory Execution Act applicable to from judgments and arbitral awards jurisdictions other than PRC that recognize Taiwanese judgments. Civil Code §402; Compulsory Execution Act §4-1. The Supreme Court inferred that Taiwan’s legislature intended the PRC’s legal system to be treated sui generis to protect the rights and interests of Taiwanese citizens in view of the special relationship with China and the differences between the two legal systems.
While the Supreme Court previously issued three judgments nearly a decade ago with similar holdings(96 Taishang Zi No. 2531, 97 Taishang Zi No. 2258, and 97 Taishang 2376), a number of lower courts including the Taiwan High Court have reached different conclusions in the interim. Shending Law Firm unequivocally rejects the theories of the lower courts and reaffirms that Taiwan does not recognize Chinese judgments and awards as having the same res judicata effect as those from other foreign jurisdictions including Hong Kong and Macau. Consequently, while enforcement of a Chinese judgment or arbitral award is still ultimately possible in Taiwan, the underlying claims are likely to be relitigated on the merits.
The result for the foreseeable future is that when faced with the increasingly common situation of a potential dispute with Taiwanese business partners in China whose assets are in Taiwan, practitioners should choose dispute resolution in an appropriate third jurisdiction or possibly in Taiwan itself if there is any possibility that the judgment or arbitral award must be enforced here. For the same reasons, it is also very important to realize that one is dealing with an entity whose principals or parent are based in Taiwan.
One caveat is that the third jurisdiction must always be checked to see if Taiwan will recognize judgments and arbitral awards from that jurisdiction. In the case of most (but by no means all) leading jurisdictions, Taiwan will recognize and enforce judgments and arbitral awards without excessive scrutiny on public policy grounds as was initially the case with the CIETAC award.
A case of first impression involving the right to be forgotten recently came before the Taipei District Court. Despite an inconclusive District Court decision, Taiwan’s history of adopting European data protection standards and shifting public opinion in Taiwan suggest that the right to be forgotten could be created in the future.
Shi v. Google International LLC (Taiwan)
The facts of Shi v. Google International LLC (Taiwan) were similar to Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, the Spanish case decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014. In Costeja, the Court of Justice held that Google Inc. was a data controller and that a search operator had a duty to remove links that are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer irrelevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing at issue carried out by the operator of the search engine, not kept up to date, or that they are kept for longer than is necessary unless they are required to be kept for historical, statistical, or scientific purposes…”
Mr. Shi was an owner of a Taiwanese baseball team that was accused of throwing games a number of years ago. Mr. Shi was indicted on fraud charges but ultimately found not guilty. Nonetheless, information about his alleged involvement in throwing baseball games still appears in Google search results.
In 2014 Mr. Shi brought legal proceedings against Google International LLC, Taiwan Branch (“Google Taiwan“) asking that Google Taiwan be ordered to remove its links leading to information about Mr. Shi’s alleged involvement in the scandal. In January of this year, the Taipei District Court issued a judgment against Mr. Shi. 103 Su Zi No. 2976.
In its opinion, the District Court did not reach the issue of whether a right to be forgotten should be recognized in Taiwan. The District Court was unwilling to infer from the fact that Google’s search engine may be used in Taiwan that its searches and organization of information take place in Taiwan. Nor was it willing to infer that Google Taiwan had control of the Google search engine. It found that Google Search is operated by Google Inc. and that Google Taiwan was a branch of Google International LLC, another entity in the Google group. As a result, Mr. Shi had no standing to bring his claim against Google Taiwan. This ruling contrasts sharply with Costeja where it was held that Google Inc. was subject to the European data protection law because despite not having a formal legal presence in Spain, its activities there in combination with its Spanish affiliate amounted to an establishment in Spain.
While Mr. Shi is said to be appealing, the case highlights once again the great importance the Taiwanese courts place on the distinctions between different legal entities even in the same group of companies and the reluctance of the lower courts to squarely address new legal theories such as the right to be forgotten.
Taiwan Looks to Europe
The predecessor of Taiwan’s current Personal Information Protection Act (the “PIPA“) was the 1995 Computer Processed Personal Data Protection Act. This statute was based largely on the 1980 OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data and the Council of Europe’s 1981 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.
Even before the PIPA took effect in 2012, a delegation from the Ministry of Justice traveled to Europe to study the draft General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). At the time, officials from the Ministry of Justice also stated that the Ministry was following the development of the right to be forgotten in Europe with a view toward including it in the next set of amendments to the Personal Information Protection Act. While these amendments have not yet appeared, the Ministry of Justice has also formally requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to monitor the progress of data protection legislation in Europe.
Debate on Internet Regulation in Taiwan
Finally, heightened public concerns over internet abuse and the growing perception in some quarters that Taiwan’s freewheeling internet culture needs to be better regulated have lead to renewed calls for a right to be forgotten in the first half of this year. To be sure, suggestions that greater control be exercised over the kinds of speech and information available on the Internet in Taiwan are vigorously opposed by many influential voices. Still, there is noticeably little opposition to the concept of a right to be forgotten to date.
In sum, Taiwan’s courts have thus far declined to recognize a right to be forgotten by sidestepping the issue. Nonetheless, Taiwan’s tendency to follow European developments in data protection and growing concerns about the social cost of an unregulated internet make it foreseeable a version of the right to be forgotten will be proposed by the academic experts who advise the Ministry of Justice on data protection. It is equally foreseeable that any such proposal will engender a public debate similar to the one in Hong Kong on whether the right to be forgotten is in fact a device to protect the wealthy and powerful from what they deem to be excessive public scrutiny.
Your business team has discovered a company in Taiwan (the “Target”) which has an interesting new technology, a foothold in the China market, or some other asset or relationship which they feel would be a welcome addition to your company. The business team has recommended that your company (“Foreign Co.”) acquire the Target. So, now you must consider how best to structure this acquisition. There are, of course, many and varied issues to consider when structuring any Taiwan acquisition. This brief note focuses on only one (but an important one) of these issues: deferred purchase price payment mechanisms (e.g., holdbacks, escrows, earn-outs, etc.).
Without going into detail, any foreign company wishing to acquire a company in Taiwan must apply to the Investment Commission (the “IC”) of the Taiwan Ministry of Economic Affairs for Foreign Investment Approval (“FIA”). As part of the approval process, the IC needs to confirm that the seller is receiving fair value for its interest in the Target. In and of itself, this appears to be a rather innocuous provision. However, in practice the IC will not grant a FIA in a situation where the seller will tender its shares in Target at closing for (a) some amount of consideration at closing, plus (b) a conditional payment of additional consideration some time after closing. In order to procure a FIA, the IC must find that the amount of consideration paid at closing is equal to the fair value of the Target shares tendered by the seller at closing.
The question then becomes how do you structure any kind of escrow arrangement, holdback or earn-out if the IC is not going to assign any value to conditional payments which may or may not be made post-closing?
The simplest and most common workaround is to set up a local, Taiwan acquisition vehicle. Rather than purchasing Target directly, Foreign Co. sets up a local Taiwan company (“Taiwan Co.”) to acquire the Target. When you set up Taiwan Co., you will still need to go through the FIA process. But, the nature of the FIA review will be different than the review for an acquisition. The review in connection with establishing Taiwan Co. will focus on whether Foreign Co. has adequately funded Taiwan Co. to carry out its expected business and operations in Taiwan. This FIA process is relatively straightforward. And, once the FIA is granted, Foreign Co. can then fund Taiwan Co. with sufficient amounts to acquire the Target.
Taiwan Co.’s acquisition of the Target would be further subject to another FIA review. But, like the review in connection with Taiwan Co.’s initial funding, the FIA review of a domestic acquisition by a foreign-invested Taiwan enterprise would not include an examination of the consideration to be exchanged for the Target’s shares. In effect, Taiwan Co. would be free to enter into a purchase agreement for shares of Target including any manner of escrow, holdback or earn-out provisions you felt necessary and advisable under the circumstances.
A significant portion of Winkler Partners’ corporate practice involves advising international clients on how best to structure their businesses in Taiwan. One of the first questions each international client typically asks when planning to enter the Taiwan market is: What type of entity is appropriate for its purposes in Taiwan? While this is a valid and important question, it may in some cases focus the structuring discussions too narrowly and thereby inadvertently overlook more advantageous structuring alternatives.
Assuming that the client needs a business entity in Taiwan in order to conduct its affairs here in accordance with Taiwan law, it is almost always worth considering establishing an offshore holding company to own and/or control the Taiwan entity. Set forth below is a list, although not exhaustive, of some of the key advantages that our clients have gained through the use of offshore vehicles in connection with their Taiwan corporate structures.
Corporate Law Follows International Norms. There are a number of provisions in Taiwan’s Company Act that restrict the ability of company promoters, directors, and managers to accomplish certain transactions that may seem relatively routine in their home jurisdictions. For instance, Taiwan’s Company Act generally prohibits a company from repurchasing its own shares. Taiwan company board meetings must be held in person or by video conference and resolutions must be passed by vote of the attending directors. Signed written resolutions in lieu of such a meeting will NOT suffice. Another Company Act provision stipulates that the original company promoter (i.e., the initial shareholder(s)) may not transfer shares of the newly established company for a period of one year following the company’s establishment.
By establishing an offshore holding vehicle, the shareholders can govern their relationship to each other and to the corporate entity offshore of Taiwan. Most of the more common offshore jurisdictions (e.g., the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, etc.) allow: (i) directors to pass written resolutions without convening a meeting; (ii) original promoters to sell their interests freely; and (iii) the company to repurchase its own shares, subject to reasonable restrictions.
In addition to being generally more permissive in the types of allowable corporate transactions, many offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands allow companies established there to tailor their organizational documents (i.e., Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association). In most cases, corporate legislation in these jurisdictions is subject to the specific provisions of a company’s organizational documents, meaning that the offshore company has the power to “opt-out” of undesirable or unnecessary statutory default provisions.
Tax and Legal Liability Advantages. If the client is contemplating expatriating profits from Taiwan back to its home office (or some other affiliate outside of Taiwan), we typically consider establishing a branch office here in Taiwan. The primary advantage of having a Taiwan branch (instead of a Taiwan subsidiary) is that the Taiwan tax authorities do not require the 20% withholding on amounts transferred by a branch office back to its home office as they do in respect of amounts paid as dividends or otherwise from a Taiwan subsidiary to its offshore parent. However, as a branch is not a separate juridical person for legal purposes, the home office is considered to be doing business directly in Taiwan, and therefore, it may be directly liable for all debts and liabilities of its branch here. Having an offshore vehicle interjected between the ultimate home company and the Taiwan branch provides the tax advantages of the branch structure while maintaining the legal liability shield associated with a subsidiary.
More Attractive to Investors. If a client were considering seeking additional investment for its Taiwan operations, using an offshore holding company can increase the attractiveness of the investment to potential investors. Some offshore jurisdictions, unlike Taiwan, do not require shares to have a par value. Being able to issue no par value shares allows the board complete flexibility in setting the share price to prospective new investors. This flexibility, coupled with the comfort foreign investors typically have with the corporate governance and minority shareholder protections in the more common offshore jurisdictions, increases the client’s ability to raise necessary additional investment.
Again, the items listed above are by no means an exhaustive list of the benefits that an offshore vehicle may provide. And, the use of an offshore vehicle may not be appropriate in all circumstances. However, it is an option that in most cases should at least be considered when structuring an organization’s legal presence in Taiwan.
The key legal requirement to issuing online gaming points in Taiwan is that the gaming point issuer must adopt one of several regulator-approved measures to ensure that users can receive refunds for unused points. For example, the regulator has approved a bank guarantee that user points will be refunded.
Failure to obtain a bank guarantee or to adopt another approved method may result in an order from the regulator to take down the online game.
Until recently, this requirement applied only to online gaming software. The Taiwan Industrial Development Bureau defined online gaming software in a nonbinding 2006 guidance as “software that allows a player to play a game concurrently with multiple other persons over the internet through a server maintained by the gaming operator.” A typical example of online gaming software is World of Warcraft.
However, the Industrial Development Bureau is now inclined to consider all gaming software published via application (app) platforms as online gaming software even if the software does not allow players to play concurrently. Consequently, foreign game publishers whose payment structure requires the issue of gaming points need to ensure that an approved method for securing refunds is in place regardless of whether they publish traditional multiplayer online games or the newer single-player games popular on mobile app platforms.
Technical Examination Officers ( “TEO“) are officers of the court who assist judges at the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (“IP Court“) in litigation involving complex technology.
There are currently 13 TEOs at the IP Court with expertise in fields such as electrical engineering, chemistry, and biotechnology. Most are patent examiners on secondment from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office.
Taiwan’s Legislature authorized the appointment of TEOs when it established the IP Court in 2007. Intellectual Property Court Organization Act §15(1). Taiwan’s TEOs are modeled on the judicial researchers at the Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court and the technical examiners at the Korean Patent Court.
Acting under instructions from a judge, a TEO “makes judgments about technology, collects technical information, and analyzes and gives opinions about technology.” Organization Act §15(3). In particular, a TEO can analyze and organize the issues in party briefs to clarify the issues in dispute and refer the Court to learned treatises in the field. Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules §13(1)(a).
A TEO may also “participate in the litigation.” Organization Act §15. This means that on instructions from a judge, a TEO can appear in court and question parties, their counsel, and witnesses or give opinions for the court’s reference on technical issues. Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act §4; Adjudication Rules §13(1)(c).
In more complex cases, a TEO may be ordered by the IP Court to produce intermediate and final reports on technical issues. Adjudication Rules §16. While the parties do not have access to these reports, the IP Court will disclose opinions it has received on “specialized technical information” to the parties and give an opportunity to respond before using such opinions as the basis for its judgment. Adjudication Rules §16
As fact finders, the IP Court judges are not bound to adopt the views of the TEO and in complex cases, the IP Court will usually also appoint an neutral expert witness to evaluate the technology in dispute. Furthermore, the statements of TEOs may not be offered by the parties as evidence of facts in dispute. Adjudication Rules §18.
Between 2008 and 2012, TEOs were assigned to a total of 1,636 cases. 1,070 of those cases were civil matters, 550 were administrative and sixteen cases were criminal. TEOs provided assistance with mechanical technologies in 48% of these cases, IT in 26%, and chemistry in 8%.
Although the role of TEOs has been controversial in patent litigation and the subject of a number of Supreme Court cases, our experience has been that TEOs serve as able assistants to the judges on the IP Court.
Winkler Partners has been named by Asia Legal Business Magazine as an Employer of Choice for 2015. We were the only law firm in Taiwan to be given this award.
The survey was conducted by asking 3000 employees at law firms across Asia for their opinion of salaries, work life balance, career advancement opportunities and a variety of other criteria. We were rated highly for our work life balance, with counsel calling it ‘simply the healthiest, most enjoyable place I have ever worked.’
Winkler Partners was previously recognized as an Employer of Choice in 2010. You can view the entire article here.
Taiwan ranks highly on both the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness List and the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business List. With strong air, trade and freight links to China, Japan, Southeast Asia, and Silicon Valley, Taiwan is a convenient hub for doing business with the rest of Asia and abroad. It also has a sophisticated domestic transportation system. Taiwan is home to a robust research and development sector, advanced domestic infrastructure, a stable political climate and a free press, a sound legal framework, and a dynamic and educated workforce. These factors have recently led an increasing number of international businesses to choose Taiwan as their regional headquarters or regional hubs.
Companies wishing to establish business operations in Taiwan typically form one of the following: a Representative Office, a Branch, a Limited Company, or a Company Limited by Shares. Set forth below is a brief introduction to each of these business forms and their typical business use.
Many foreign entities prefer to set up a Representative Office in Taiwan prior to making the more substantial commitment involved in establishing a branch or a subsidiary. Establishing a Representative Office is one of the easiest ways to establish a business presence in Taiwan. However, a Representative Office is very restricted in terms of the activities it can undertake. A Representative Office may operate in Taiwan only as the agent of its overseas principal and is not considered a separate legal entity. It may not engage in profit-seeking commercial activities nor act as principal in any domestic business transaction. A Representative Office is also not allowed to sell goods or provide services in Taiwan. Typically, a Representative Office functions as a sales or purchasing agent for international businesses which have no other presence in Taiwan. Representative Offices are also used to provide technical support and training as well as to oversee quality control in Taiwan.
A foreign company may also establish a Branch to conduct business in Taiwan. Like a Representative Office, a Branch is not considered an independent legal entity, and so does not need to have shareholders, directors, or supervisors, as would be the case with a subsidiary. The cost of corporate secretarial maintenance for a Branch, therefore, is lower than that of a subsidiary. The major benefit of establishing a Branch over a subsidiary is that all after-tax profit may be legally remitted to the home company overseas without incurring additional withholding taxes in Taiwan. The primary drawback of a Branch is that it is a legal extension of its foreign home company, and therefore the home company remains legally liable for all acts of the Branch. Branches are most appropriate in situations where considerable funds are to be expatriated to the foreign home company from Taiwan. Branches are also sometimes preferred in large public infrastructure projects as the Taiwan government and often commercial counterparties would like to have legal recourse to the assets of the foreign home company.
In addition to Representative Offices and Branches, which are merely local extensions of the foreign home company, foreign companies may also establish a legally distinct subsidiary in Taiwan. The simplest form of subsidiary is a Limited Company. Taiwan Limited Companies are similar in structure to US limited liability companies. Taiwan Limited Companies are organized by one or more members, with each member, in general, being only liable to the extent of his or her individual capital contribution. A Limited Company, as opposed to a Company Limited by Shares (described below), has more flexibility in terms of structuring its corporate governance. This flexibility, however, comes at the cost of a significant impediment to transfer of interests in a Limited Company. If a director of a Limited Company wishes to transfer his or her interest in such company, the transfer must be consented to by all other members of the company. Any other member of a Limited Company who wishes to transfer his or her interest in such company must have the transfer consented to by a majority of other members. Many foreign companies choose to set up their Taiwan subsidiaries as Limited Companies, if such subsidiaries are to be wholly-owned for the foreseeable future.
Company Limited by Shares
International investors and business people choose to set up a wholly-owned subsidiary as a Company Limited by Shares if there is the possibility of selling some part of their interests in the Taiwan subsidiary. A Company Limited by Shares is similar in form to a US corporation. Shareholder liability is limited to the amount of each shareholder’s capital contribution. A Company Limited by Shares is subject to certain corporate structural requirements: it must have shareholders (at least two individual shareholders or one juridical person shareholder), directors (at least three) and a supervisor (at least one). A Company Limited by Shares can, unlike a Limited Company, become a public company in Taiwan.
 See, Invest in Taiwan website: <<http://investtaiwan.nat.gov.tw/eng/show.jsp?ID=3&MID=2>>
See, Starting a Business in Taiwan website: <<http://www.startabusinessintaiwan.tw/additional-resources/22-an-overview-of-taiwan/103-advantages-doing-business-taiwan>>
Winkler Partners has been recognized as an “eminent” trademark practice by the World Trademark Review. The WTR ranks firms and individuals in seventy major markets worldwide, and publishes their findings annually, in a report known as the WTR 1000.
In their 2015 publication, the WTR says that “the IP function at Winkler Partners is one of Taiwan’s most laudable” and that our “combination of domestic and international expertise appeals to many major companies – it represents nearly one-quarter of Interbrand’s 100 most valuable brands”. The WTR goes on to state that WP is known for our “star-studded client base” that includes major domestic tech properties as well as global eCommerce and Internet giants.
Quoting our clients, WTR notes that we provide “a high level of competence, good understanding of local laws, consistent results and prompt, attentive service”. In previous years, we have been recognized as “a favorite of companies with a transnational interest” as well as for our “highly knowledgeable and client-focused counsel”.
Head of our IP practice, Peter Dernbach, has also been named as a top trademark professional in the report. Described as “standout”, Peter is “a trusted advocate who speaks excellent Chinese and understands the system very well… he and his entire team are a real pleasure to work with”. Peter is ranked highly for enforcement and litigation, and listed as one of only five individuals in Taiwan for his prosecution and strategy work.
The WTR 1000 is the first definitive guide exclusively dedicated to identifying the world’s leading trademark legal services providers. Winkler Partners has been honored to be included since the publication launched in 2011. You can find the entire guide for 2015 here.