Fair use of a trademark is a "defense" rather than a "right"

1. Fair use of a trademark is a "defense" rather than a "right", that is, a trademark user can claim that the fair use is not bound by the validity of the trademark right so as to prevent its infringement from being established. However, the user has no right regarding the trademark used nor the right to license it to others.
2. Under provisions of Taiwan's trademark law, a person who claims that parody is a fair use can raise two defenses: the first is to say that the use is only a humorous expression, not using someone else's trademark as a way of commending itself. It is an indication of the source of goods or services, so it is not a "use of trademark" under the trademark law and there is no infringement of trademark rights. If this defense cannot be established, the user can claim that its use of the trademark will not cause harm to relevant consumers. So there is no confusion and misunderstanding, let alone the trademark rights are infringed. If both of the above defenses are untenable, then the use of another's trademark has destroyed the most important function of the trademark in identifying the source of goods or services and constitutes an infringement of trademark rights. The user cannot be exempted from liability by claiming that the trademark is a parody or imitation.
3. Since parodies or jokes are closely related to a country’s language, culture, social background, life experience, history and other factors, local people may not be able to understand the literal meaning of common jokes made by foreigners. Humorous connotations, and the humorous elements contained in jokes or just jokes, sometimes require listeners to go through a certain process of inference and thinking before they can understand the point of laughter and whether the trademark design will cause confusion and misunderstanding among relevant consumers. Usually that point happens upon an immediate reaction of the relevant consumers at the moment they see the trademark image without much reasoning and thinking, and being created an impression with the same source of other goods or services. So the United States MOB case proposed that the judgment standard must be "clear communication that it has no relationship with the original work" and "consumers can immediately take it as a parody".
4. Enterprises convey their culture, purposes, values ​​and other matters related to business reputation to consumers through brands. Consumers also create a psychological connection with the enterprise through trust and recognition of the corporate reputation behind the brand symbol to purchase their products. The disputed trademark is a very famous trademark used on leather bags and leather goods. It enjoys a unique and outstanding image in the minds of consumers and has become synonymous with high-quality products. The respondent, for its own commercial interests, forcibly adheres to the appellant’s disputed trademark. It has violated the appellant's control and autonomy over the brand image and quality commended by the disputed trademark, detracted from the precious quality image that the appellant wanted to associate with the trademark, and exposed the appellant to the risk of "mediocrity" so that its business reputation has been damaged.

(Abstract from the official website of Taiwan IP and Commercial Court/the 108th Judgment Summary, 2019/LV v. LG case)