A trademark proprietor may claim damages against a person who infringes its trademark rights and may request restraint of the infringement. In the event of likelihood of an infringement, the trademark proprietor may request prevention of such an infringement.
Where the situation set forth in any item of the second paragraph of Article 29 arises without consent of the trademark proprietor, it shall give rise to trademark infringement.

When making a claim pursuant to the provisions of the first paragraph, the trademark proprietor may request destruction or other necessary disposition of the infringing articles and the materials or equipment utilized to commit the infringement.

Any of the following acts, without consent of the trademark proprietor, shall constitute trademark infringement:
1. knowingly using a mark identical with or similar to another’s registered well-known mark or knowingly using the word element of the well-known mark as one’s own company name, trade name, domain name, or any other indicia of supplier or source of goods or services thereby impairing the distinctiveness or reputation of the well-known mark; and

2. knowingly using the word element of another’s registered mark as one’s own company name, trade name, domain name, or any other indicia of supplier or source of goods or services thereby causing confusion to the related commodity or services consumers.

When claiming damages, a trademark proprietor may elect any of the following methods to assess its damages:
l. according to Article 216 of the Civil Code. However, if the trademark proprietor is unable to provide evidence or method to prove its damages, it may assess the damages by deducting its profits after infringement from its normal profits produced by use of the trademark;

2. according to the profits of the infringer attributable to the infringement. Where the infringer is unable to present proof of its costs of production or other necessary expenditures, the total gross sales of the infringing articles shall be assessed as the infringer's profits; and

3. between five hundred (500) and one-thousand five hundred (1,500) times the unit selling price of the infringing articles. Where the quantity of the infringing articles seized is in excess of one-thousand five hundred (1,500), the damages shall be calculated as the total selling value of the confiscated articles.

Whenever the amount of damages as referred to in the preceding paragraph is clearly unreasonable, the court may at its discretion reduce the sum according to the circumstances involved.

The trademark proprietor may further request the payment of equitable damages for business reputation suffered due to the trademark infringement.

The trademark proprietor may request publication in the newspaper at the expense of the infringer the whole or partial contents of the court decision on the trademark infringement.

The trademark proprietor may request the Customs to preliminarily seize imported or exported articles which are suspected of infringing upon its trademark rights.
The request as referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be in writing, setting forth expressly the facts of infringement, and post a bond in an amount equivalent to the value appraised by the Customs on Duty-Paid or F.O.B. basis for damages or an equivalent security.

Upon deciding to accept a request for preliminary seizure, the Customs shall notify the applicant without delay. Where preliminary seizure is conducted pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, a written notification shall be served on the applicant and the owner of the seized articles.

The owner of the seized articles may provide a bond or equivalent security in an amount twice as that referred to in the second paragraph and request the Customs to cancel the seizure and release the seized articles for import or export in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The Customs may, without prejudice to the protection of the confidential information on the seized articles, allow the applicant or the owner of the seized articles to inspect the seized articles at its request.

Whenever the seized articles are declared by the court in a final judgment to infringe upon trademark rights, unless it is otherwise provided in the fourth paragraph of Article 66, the overstaying costs of the seized articles’ shipping containers, the warehouse rents, the loading and unloading fees and other relevant costs shall be borne by the owner of the seized articles.

In any of the following events, the Customs shall cancel the seizure:
1. Where the Customs, within twelve days from the date of notification to the applicant of its acceptance of the application for seizure, is not notified of any infringement proceedings in relation to the seized articles pursuant to the provisions of Article 61;

2. Where the infringement proceedings in view of the seized articles initiated by the applicant have been dismissed by the court irrevocably;

3. Where the seized articles are declared by the court in a final judgment not to infringe the trademark rights;

4. Where the applicant applies for cancellation of the seizure; and

5. Where the provisions of the fourth paragraph of the preceding Article apply.

In regard to the time limit as referred to in Item 1 of the preceding paragraph, the Customs may grant a twelve-day extension if necessary.

In the event of cancellation of the seizure pursuant to the provisions of the first paragraph, the Customs shall release the seized articles for import or export in accordance with the relevant regulations.

In the event of cancellation of the seizure under Items 1 through 4 of the first paragraph, the overstaying costs of the seized articles’ shipping containers, the warehouse rents, the loading and unloading fees and other relevant costs shall be borne by the applicant.

Where the seized articles are declared by the court in a final judgment not to infringe the trademark rights, the applicant shall be liable for damages to the owner of the seized articles as a result of the unjustified seizure or provision of bond as referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 65.
With respect to the bond as referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 65 and that as referred to in the second paragraph of Article 65, the applicant and the owner of the seized articles shall have the same rights as a creditor. However, the overstaying costs of the seized articles’ shipping containers, the warehouse rents, the loading and unloading fees and other relevant costs as respectively referred to in the fourth paragraph of the preceding Article and the sixth paragraph of Article 65 shall be given priority in the damages awarded to the applicant or the owner of the seized articles.

In any of the following events, the Customs shall return the bond as referred to in the second paragraph of Article 65 at the request of the applicant:

1. Where the applicant has obtained a favorable final judgment or has reached a settlement with the owner of seized articles, and, as a result, the cause of bond has ceased to exist;

2. Where the owner of the seized articles has suffered from any damages due to the cancellation of seizure as referred to in Items 1 through 4, the first paragraph of the preceding Article or where after the owner of the seized articles has obtained a favorable final judgment, the applicant proves that, regardless of notification to the owner of the seized articles to exercise his or her rights within a period of time not less than twenty days, the owner of the seized articles fails to do so; and

3. Where the owner of the seized articles has given consent to release of the bond.

In any of the following events, the Customs shall return the bond as referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 65 at the request of the owner of the seized articles:

1. Where the seizure has been cancelled pursuant to the provisions of Items 1 through 4, the first paragraph of the preceding Article or the owner of seized articles has reached a settlement with the applicant, and, as a result, the cause of bond has ceased to exist;

2. Where after the applicant has obtained a favorable final judgment, the owner of the seized articles, proves that, regardless of notification to the applicant to exercise his or her rights within a period of time not less than twenty days, the applicant fails to do so; and

3. Where the applicant has given consent to release of the bond.

The regulations related to applications for seizure, cancellation of seizure, inspection of seized articles, payment, provision and procedures for return of bond, requisite documents and other matters to be complied with as set forth in the preceding three Articles shall be prescribed by the Trademark Office and the Ministry of Treasure.

Whenever the right of a trademark licensee/sublicensee to use a trademark, procured in accordance with the provisions of Article 33, is infringed, the provisions of this Chapter shall, mutatis mutandis, apply.

Foreign legal entities or groups, not limited to those who have obtained recognition in the Republic of China, may file a complaint, private prosecution or civil action in respect of any matter as provided in this Law.

The court may establish a specific forum or appoint certain judges to dispose of trademark litigation cases.