Many real estate developments promote their proximity to well-known universities, and some even incorporate the university’s name into the development's name. Such use may constitute trademark infringement. In a civil judgment dated January 13, 2026 (Year 114 Min-Shang-Su-Zi No. 15), the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) held that the use of the wording “Tai Da” (which is the phonetic equivalent of the Chinese abbreviation for National Taiwan University) in the real estate development name “Han Bau Tai Da Yuan” (the “Project”) infringed the trademarks of National Taiwan University (the “Plaintiff”).

 

In this case, the Plaintiff is the owner of several registered trademarks in Taiwan, including Registration Nos. 01310444 (“National Taiwan University”), 01506220 (“Tai Da TAIDA”), 01506222 (“TAIDA”), and 01739702 (“National Taiwan University”) (collectively, the “Trademarks”). These Trademarks are designated for use in Class 42 activities, covering services such as architectural design, civil engineering design, urban planning, land surveying, and structural safety assessment and consulting, and are all currently within the term of the trademark rights.

 

The defendants are the developers of the Project. They entered into an advertising and sales agreement with an advertising agency, which was responsible for sales, media production and placement, and marketing strategy. The advertising agency subsequently marketed and sold properties within the Project under the name “Han Bau Tai Da Yuan.” The Plaintiff then filed a trademark infringement action against the developers.

 

After reviewing the case, the IPC Court found that, in advertisements, billboards, and related marketing materials, the wording “Han Bau Tai Da Yuan” was prominently displayed in larger font, while the names of the developers or the advertising agency appeared in smaller font. Such presentation was sufficient to lead relevant consumers to believe that the source of the Project was “Han Bau Tai Da Yuan” or that it was a co-branded product or service jointly offered by the Han Bau Development Group and National Taiwan University.

 

The Court further noted that, if the defendants intended merely to emphasize that the Project is located across a river from National Taiwan University, such information could have been conveyed through advertising text or descriptions of location and surrounding environment. There was no necessity to incorporate “Tai Da” into the development name. Accordingly, the Court held that the defendants’ conduct constituted “use of a trademark” under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Act and did not fall within the scope of fair use under Article 36.

 

The Court further determined that the wording “Tai Da” used in the Project name is highly similar to the Trademarks (e.g., “National Taiwan University” and “Tai Da”). Also, while the Trademarks are designated for use in Class 42 activities (including architectural design, civil engineering design, environmental protection research, etc.), the Project involves real estate transactions. Both fall within the category of services or goods relating to real estate, and their nature and functions are broadly similar, exhibiting a common feature or a certain degree of relatedness. In addition, the Plaintiff has, in recent years, collaborated with other construction companies or outsourced the operation of developments bearing the name “Tai Da,” which further demonstrates that the defendants’ use of the name “Han Bau Tai Da Yuan” for the Project is indeed likely to cause relevant consumers, exercising ordinary knowledge and experience, to mistakenly believe that the source of the services provided by the defendants is the same as that of the Trademarks, or that there exists a relationship (such as authorization, franchising, or affiliation) between the defendants and the Plaintiffs. The IPC Court therefore concluded that trademark infringement was established.

 

While the naming of a real estate development serves marketing and identification functions, when using wording identical to or similar to trademarks of schools, institutions, organizations, or companies, it remains necessary to carefully assess whether such use may, within the relevant industry of such trademarks, give rise to a likelihood of confusion or misperception as to an association. If the intention is to emphasize the development's geographical location, such information may instead be conveyed in its advertising copy and through descriptions of its location and surrounding environment, so as to avoid infringing others’ trademark rights.