Press Enter to Center block

Intellectual Property and Commercial Court


2012 Min Gong Su Zi No. 3

Decision No. 2012 Min Gong Su Zi No. 3
Date December 28, 2012
Decision Highlight

When determining whether an enterprise uses another’s symbol in the same or similar manner, the court should observe the two symbols’ appearance separately and in whole with an ordinary care a purchaser having ordinary knowledge would exercise when purchasing, and would consider whether the difference is likely to cause confusion. Rather than comparing the commodities side by side when purchasing, consumers are more likely to buy goods based on their whole impression of the commodity’s symbol. Therefore, when two symbols’ appearances demonstrate similar overall impression or feelings to customers, one can say that it is using symbols in a similar manner to cause ordinary consumers’ confusion. Additionally, one should observe separately and in whole when determining whether a symbol is used in a similar manner. But if a specific part of the symbol is particularly conspicuous and the symbol’s identification function is particularly remarkable, that specific part can be observed to determine how similar the two symbols are. It is different from simply comparing symbols in a separate manner.


Ban Against Passing off, Criteria for “Symbols” of Article 20 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 1 of the Fair Trade Act.

Relevant statutes Article 20 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 1, Article 24, Article 30, Article 31, Article 32 of the Fair Trade Act, Article 28, Article 195 of the Civil Code, Article 23 Paragraph 2 of the Company Act
  • Release Date:2020-11-13
  • Update:2020-12-07