There have been many real estate projects located near well-known landmarks. As a result, developers have often included phrases such as "near a certain landmark" or "just 5 minutes from a certain landmark" in their promotional materials to attract consumers’ attention. Generally speaking, if the description is purely geographical—for example, informing consumers that the project is “next to a certain landmark” or located in that area—and the mention of the landmark is made objectively solely to describe the location or specify the direction, it should be considered a descriptive fair use under the Trademark Act. However, if the landmark is used as the main name of the project and the name of that landmark has already been registered as a trademark by another party, this may constitute trademark infringement.

 

In the case facts of Judgment No.: 114-Ming-TM-Shang-6 rendered by the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court ("IPCC"), the developer used "城品" (the pronunciation of which is near to "誠品") as the name of the real estate project and employed "誠品生活" ("Eslite Living") as a slogan to attract consumers’ attention and sell the properties. The IPCC recognized that the developer’s use of "城品" as the name of the real estate project, as well as the use of "城品" and "誠品生活" in marketing materials, large billboards, and sales websites, constituted trademark use and was not merely a descriptive reference to the surrounding environment of the project. Therefore, given that the trademark owner has operated the disputed trademark "誠品" ("Eslite") for many years, the scope of business covered by the disputed trademark "誠品" has expanded from bookstores to include department stores, real estate leasing, and sales, among other businesses. Furthermore, the Intellectual Property Office and the courts have recognized "誠品" as a well-known trademark; therefore, the developer’s use of "城品" as the name of the real estate project constitutes trademark infringement.

 

Regarding the trademark owner’s claim for NTD10 million in damages, the IPCC noted that the sales revenue for this real estate project was 621.37 million; based on the 10% net profit margin for the real estate development industry as published by the Ministry of Finance, the developer’s net profit was 62.137 million. The IPCC further considered that when consumers select a real estate development, they take into account not only the property’s location, the surrounding area, and its amenities, but also numerous other factors such as the property’s layout and design, building material specifications, and the developer’s expertise and reputation. Since the name of the real estate project is not the sole determining factor, the IPCC reduced the amount of damages to 5 million.

 

In fact, in Judgment No.: 114-Ming-TM-Su-15 rendered by the IPCC early this year (2026), the IPCC also ruled that another developer’s use of the name "漢寶臺大苑" to market and sell a real estate project infringed upon the trademark rights of National Taiwan University (the trademark of which is "臺大"), and ordered the developer to pay damages of NTD1 million. According to the opinions that the IPCC cited in these two cases, when developers select well-known landmarks as project names or for promotional purposes, they should verify whether such landmarks are registered trademarks and ensure that their promotional methods are conducted in good faith and objectively—without indicating the source of the goods or services and without any intent to free-ride on the trademark’s reputation. Otherwise, they may be found to have infringed trademark rights and be required to pay substantial damages.