When posting on Instagram, Threads, or other social-media platforms, businesses sometimes add another brand's name as a hashtag, hoping to reach people interested in that topic. A clothing seller might refer to a well-known label when describing a style. A creator might share their experience with a product they actually bought.
Whether these uses infringe trademark rights cannot be decided by looking only for a "#". The starting point is the role the brand name plays in the post. From there, the analysis turns to the scope of the registered rights, the goods or services involved, and the statutory requirements.
Taiwan's Trademark Act addresses this in three places. Article 5 defines trademark use, Article 35 sets out the scope of a trademark owner's rights, and Article 36 lists uses that fall outside those rights.
What the law provides. Under Article 5, trademark use requires use for marketing purposes through one of the specified forms of use, in a way that is sufficient for relevant consumers to recognize the sign as a trademark. The specified forms include use in commercial documents or advertising relating to goods or services. Use through digital audiovisual content, electronic media, or the internet is also covered.
A brand name appearing online therefore does not automatically amount to trademark use. Equally, a post does not fall outside trademark law simply because it was published on social media.
What requires case-specific assessment. The post should be reviewed as a whole, not by isolating one hashtag. Useful questions include:
These questions help organize the facts. They are not separate legal tests, and a "yes" to any one of them does not by itself establish infringement.
What the law provides. Article 35 gives the trademark owner rights in the goods or services designated in the registration. Subject to Article 36, the owner's consent is required for:
For this reason, "nobody was actually confused" is not a universal defense. The first category, an identical mark used for identical goods or services, does not list likelihood of confusion as a separate element.
At the same time, the appearance of an identical name does not remove the need to examine trademark use, the scope of the registration, and the statutory limitations.
What the law provides. Article 36(1)(1) provides that trademark rights do not extend to certain uses made honestly and in line with commercial practice: describing one's own goods or services, where the sign is not used as a trademark.
Article 36(1)(2) covers a separate situation. A person may need to use another party's mark to identify that party's goods or services when indicating the intended purpose of their own. The use must be honest and in line with commercial practice. This provision does not apply if the use creates a likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers.
What requires case-specific assessment. Saying "I'm only describing" is not an automatic defense. The actual wording, the way it is used, and the statutory conditions still have to be checked.
None of the following guarantees that a use is lawful:
These details may be part of the assessment, but they do not replace it.
The best-known Taiwanese example is the "QQBOW" dispute. The first-instance judgment is Intellectual Property Court Civil Judgment No. 108-Min-Shang-Su-12. The appeal was decided in Intellectual Property Court Civil Judgment No. 109-Min-Shang-Shang-2.
The case concerned an online seller's use of wording such as "QQBOW style," "same style," and "#QQBOW" on a shopping platform.
First instance. According to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office's published summary, the court looked at the store name, product titles, style descriptions, and hashtag use. It treated the wording as describing product style. It also found that the hashtag was not objectively sufficient for relevant consumers to recognize it as a trademark. The alleged infringement was therefore not established.
Appeal. Law-firm commentaries report that the appellate court reached the same view. Its reasoning was that the seller used the wording to convey that its product had the same style as the plaintiff's products. The reasoning continued that a hashtag lets users find other posts carrying the same tag on the same platform, rather than pointing to the plaintiff's own fan page or another platform. On that basis, the use was not trademark use.
Commentators also describe the appellate court as treating the hashtag mainly as an indexing and classification function. On this view, ordinary consumers would see a clickable "#keyword" as a way to reach related content, not as an identification of who made or supplies the goods. A Taiwanese law-firm article also states that the ruling became final and was the first time the Intellectual Property Court addressed this issue.
What the case does and does not show. The ruling is useful guidance on how a Taiwanese court looked at hashtags in an online-marketplace setting. In those circumstances, using another party's registered mark as an indexing hashtag was not treated as infringing use.
It is not a blanket rule. It does not show that every brand hashtag is lawful, and it does not show that "same style" wording is always safe. The result depended on how the sign was actually used in that case, including the seller's overall presentation.
These examples are illustrative only. They are not real cases and not conclusions about any particular post.
Sharing a review of a purchased product. A user posts about a product they bought and adds the brand's hashtag to show what the review is about. The questions are whether the post really concerns that product, whether it is part of a sales or marketing arrangement, and whether it suggests a relationship that does not exist. The brand name alone does not establish infringement.
Selling your own products with another brand's hashtag. A seller markets clothing from its own sources but uses another clothing brand's name in its posts. The review should cover whether the name identifies the source of the goods, whether the description is accurate, whether the overall presentation could mislead, and whether a statutory limitation applies. Wanting more reach does not by itself establish infringement. Calling it "just a hashtag" does not remove the risk either.
A service business repeatedly tagging another business. A hair salon repeatedly adds another salon's name to posts showing its work and booking details. The review should look at the role of the name on the page as a whole, the services and trademark rights involved, and whether readers might think the two are the same business, a branch, or partners. Repetition is a fact worth noting, but frequency alone does not decide the question.
These are risk-management suggestions, not statutory duties:
If a post also uses someone else's photos, videos, or designs, those rights need a separate review. This guide does not cover copyright in those materials.
As general practical steps:
A notice does not mean infringement has been established. Continuing the disputed use without assessment is not a prudent response either. Under Article 69, a trademark owner may seek removal or prevention of infringement when the conditions are met, and intentional or negligent infringement may lead to liability for damages.
Another brand can be the subject of a review or discussion. That does not mean every commercial use of the name is free of limits.
The analysis should come back to trademark use, the scope of rights, and the statutory limitations. It should not rest on a shortcut such as "descriptive wording is always lawful" or "every commercial post infringes."
If you are planning a social-media campaign, or have received a notice about a brand name, hashtag, or trademark use, you can book a consultation. Bring the complete posts, the relevant trademark records, and any related agreements.
