The judicial determination of specific infringements of trademark rights is introduced as follows: 1. Manifestations of imminent infringement of trademark rights There are provisions in the Trademark Law regarding imminent infringement of trademark rights. The acts that are about to infringe trademark rights mainly include the following: holding infringing goods for the purpose of selling; publishing advertisements for infringing goods for the purpose of selling; and holding infringing logos or trademarks for the purpose of manufacturing or selling infringing goods. The behavior of packaging materials with infringing logos, etc. 2. Whether the act of contracting for processing constitutes infringement. When contracting to process goods with registered trademarks of others, the contractor shall examine whether the orderer has the trademark rights. If processing is performed without fulfilling the duty of care, the contractor and the orderer shall constitute an infringement. * If the contractor does not know that the goods are infringing and can provide proof of the rights of the orderer and his trademark, the contractor shall not be liable for damages due to infringement, but shall stop manufacturing. 3. Whether gifting constitutes infringement. For the act of gifting other goods that infringe upon the trademark rights of others when selling goods, because gifting is a form of sales, giving away infringing goods is an infringement of trademark rights, and the person who makes the gift should be held responsible. Liability to stop infringement; if you know or should have known that the donated goods are goods that infringe trademark rights, you shall also be liable for damages. 4. Whether the sales behavior after the termination of the trademark license contract constitutes infringement. The plaintiff once permitted the defendant to use its registered trademark and signed a trademark license contract. However, after the termination of the contract, the defendant still had some products bearing the plaintiff’s trademark that had not yet been sold. The defendants continued to sell these goods in order to realize their own commercial interests. If there is a stipulation in the trademark license contract or the parties reach an agreement on this issue, it shall be handled in accordance with the agreement of the parties; if there is no stipulation or the parties cannot reach an agreement, a reasonable sales period may be determined based on the specific circumstances, and within this period the licensee will sell the license contract Products manufactured within the time limit will not be deemed to be infringement; products sold after the expiration date will constitute infringement. 5. Whether the use of a business name that has been approved by the relevant competent authorities for infringing trademark rights constitutes infringement. Although the business name has been approved by the relevant competent authorities, if the name functions as a trademark when used, it is enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding, which constitutes infringement. Infringement of trademark rights. The approval of a business name by the relevant competent authorities only indicates that the use of the name complies with the management regulations of the department, and cannot be used as a basis for not infringing the trademark rights of others. The relevant competent authorities have neither the right nor the ability to determine whether the business name applied for use infringes upon the trademark rights of others. The trademark right shall be recognized, and its approval cannot exclude the possibility that the name infringes upon the trademark rights of others. 6. Whether the act of replacing a trademark constitutes infringement? The right holder has two registered trademarks, which are used on different grades of goods. Others purchase the right holder’s low-end goods, remove the trademarks, and replace them with the trademark used by the right holder on high-end goods. If the trademark is later sold and the rights holder files a lawsuit for trademark infringement, the alleged infringer’s behavior should be deemed as “replacing the trademark without the consent of the trademark registrant” as stipulated in Article 52(4) of the Trademark Law. It is an infringing act of registering a trademark and putting the goods with the changed trademark into the market.