Article 30 paragraph 1 subparagraph 3 of the Trademark Act before amendment stipulated that “where, prior to the filing date of a registered trademark, a person has been using bona fide an identical or similar trademark designating on the identical or similar goods or services, he shall be free from the capacity of trademark rights of another.” “Bond fide” should mean unknowing and not in bad faith. The defendant argued that before the disputed trademark application, he has been using the picture in attachment No.2 to manufacture and sell shoes in Taiwan and offshore islands since 2003. Therefore, the plaintiff’s trademark doesn’t bind him according to the above-mentioned article. The defendant also provided the records of clients’ checks as evidence. However, information on the checks included only the drawers, the amounts of payment, and the dates of maturity so that they can’t prove the facts to be proven. (see p.111-17)

Even if the defendant, Lo Si-Wan, indeed had been using the picture in attachment No.2 to manufacture and sell shoes since 2003, he couldn’t claim that his behavior was bond fide, even though the plaintiff, Hsu Wen-Chang, didn’t apply to register the picture as a trademark. It is because the defendant knew that the picture is owned by the plaintiff and what he was commissioned was only to use the picture to manufacture shoes. Therefore, the defendant’s claim, that the plaintiff’s trademark doesn’t bind him according to article 30 paragraph 1 subparagraph 3 of the Trademark Act because he was bona fide, is groundless.

Using Bond Fide