Polo/Lauren Secured Critical Win Against Parallel Importer on Appeal

 On May 14, 2026, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) handed the Polo/Lauren Company L.P. (“Polo/Lauren”) a key win on appeal, vacating the lower court’s determination on doctrine of exhaustion, and finding that Polo/Lauren’s famous trademarks (“Polo Ralph Lauren”, see below) were infringed by, Jie Sin Trading Co. Ltd. (Jie Sin Trading), the parallel importer of Polo/Lauren’s products.

1.        Background

This dispute, dated back to 2022, was derived from Jie Sin Trading’s importation and the way it resold Polo/Lauren’s products in Taiwan. According to Polo/Lauren, Jie Sin Trading, without proper license, illegally used Polo/Lauren’s aforesaid well-Known trademarks in reselling Ralph Lauren’s products at S-Outlet, a shopping mall managed and operated by another joint tortfeasor, ESSE Commerce Development Inc. (“ESSE”). Ralph Lauren sued Jie Sin Trading and ESSE based on violations of Trademark Act and Fair Trade Act before the IPC Court in 2022.

2.        IPC Court’s decision at the first instance level

In the first instance level, the IPC Court found that because the Polo/Lauren’s products resold by Jie Sin Trading at S-Outlet were genuine products, Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights were exhausted under Article 36 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act (111-Ming-Shang-Su-Zi No. 57). However, the IPC Court ruled that the way and style Jie Sin Trading used Ralph Lauren’s trademarks in its physical stores were deviant from common practice and misleading, so the court held Jie Sin Trading liable under Article 25 of Fair Trade Act (See: https://lnkd.in/gH85ktV4 ). Both Polo/Lauren and Jie Sin Trading appealed.

3.        IPC Court’s decision at the second instance level

On appeal, the IPC Court vacated its lower court’s finding, and determined that in addition to violating Fair Trade Act, Jie Sin Trading and ESSE also violated Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights. The IPC Court agreed that since the products resold by Jie Sin Trading at S-Outlet were genuine, they should be exempted from Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights under Article 36 of Trademark Act. However, the scope of exhaustion should be limited to the products themselves, not including Jie Sin Trading’s use of trademarks on the advertising materials, such as S-Outlet’s webpages, and the signage and other labels displayed in Jie Sin Trading’s physical stores. As Polo/Lauren correctly pointed out, when in the store or visiting the website, ordinary consumers could only see “Polo Ralph Lauren”. And even Jie Sin Trading’s name “JS’ Maxx” was presented somewhere in the store, it was less visible and clear (For example, see: https://www.s-outlet.com.tw/dm.php?i=82 and https://amy77.com/blog/post/s-outlet).

Jie Sin Trading argued that even if Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights were not exhausted, its use is merely indicative and should be fair use under Trademark Act. The IPC Court disagreed, finding that Jie Sin Trading’s use intentionally emphasized and highlighted the presence of Ralph Lauren’s trademarks on its webpages, signage, and billboard without identifying its company name, which is not aligned with fair trade and common practice. Indeed, in the entrance of the store and on its billboard, Jie Sin Trading’s company name was either not present or less visible. Under such circumstance, when entering the store or visiting the website, ordinary consumers would easily form the impression that Jie Sin Trading’s store is related to or affiliated with Polo/Lauren, which cause confusion with Polo/Lauren’s well-known trademarks.

While ESSE argued that it had no control over the way Jie Sin Trading used trademark, the IPC Court found these arguments unpersuasive. Because evidence showed that ESSE was at least in charge of the management of advertisements Jie Sin Trading used on S-Outlet’s webpage. To this end, the IPC Court found ESSE negligent in failing to regulate Jie Sin Trading’s use of “Polo Ralph Lauren” without identifying its company name in its proposed online advertising.

4. IPC Court’s conclusion on appeal

Based on the above reasons, in addition to the monetary and injunctive reliefs awarded by the lower court’s decision, the IPC Court further awarded Polo/Lauren NT$ 1.52 million against Jie Sin Trading and NT$ 2 million against ESSE based on trademark law violations respectively.

Source: 114-Ming-Shang-Shan-Zi No. 11 (IPC Court) https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,114%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e4%b8%8a%2c11%2c20260514%2c1