As to the plaintiff’s request that the defendant should compensate its loss of good will, the plaintiff merely asserts that the defendant’s use of the disputed trademark seriously injured its products and good will which are associated with the trademark “CATWALK.” However, the plaintiff had never proved the monetary value of its good will and how much value of its good will has been reduced by the defendant’s act. The plaintiff’s general assertion that its good will was injured does not meet its burden of proof. The term “good will,” for a legal person, means the value of its personality, which is similar to the concept of “non-property damages” for a natural person. However, the value of the good will of a legal person can be calculated by the actuarial method, and such value would be treated as “an asset” in the accounting practice. Therefore, to establish the loss of its good will, the plaintiff should provide the calculation method and evidence to prove the value of its good will as well as the amount of damages. It is different from a situation in which a natural person seeks compensation for non-property damages, where he can generally claim that his reputation has been damaged. In addition, the system of damages is designed to recoup the lost value caused by an infringement. If the reduced value cannot be proved or there is no reduced value, the court will not award damages even if there was indeed an infringement.. Therefore, since the plaintiff had never proved how much damage has been caused to its good will, the loss to its good will is thus doubtful. The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant should compensate such unascertained damage is without merit and should be dismissed.