大陸唯冠公司控訴蘋果電腦公司的iPad商標訴訟是一顛覆傳統商標侵權認知 的「反向混淆」案件。為了保障商標權人及消費者的權益，「混淆誤認」一直是 商標侵權與否的重要判斷因素，傳統商標侵權中又以「正向混淆」案件為主，亦 即在後商標使用者在自己的商品或服務上使用他人已註冊之著名商標，造成消費 者混淆，藉以獲取不正利益。但迥異於傳統商標侵權「小企業攀附大企業」的搭 便車印象，反向混淆案件恰巧「反客為主」，商標擁有者的商標本不具知名度， 在具市場影響力之在後使用者透過大規模的廣告宣傳與行銷策略的拉抬下，營造 了系爭商標的品牌價值，但也弱化系爭商標與商標權人間的緊密聯繫，造成消費 者認為此商標屬於侵權者的錯誤印象。正向混淆及反向混淆案件在事實構成及損 害結果方面有極大的差異，傳統的商標侵權理論是否可適用於反向混淆案件？又 商標使用背後所代表的是一追求利益最大化的商業活動，先註冊主義精神的維護 與商標價值最大化的追求，孰輕孰重？反向混淆理論的正當性亦面臨經濟效益觀點的挑戰。

The iPad case of Apple Inc. in China as a reverse confusion case seems to challenge traditional trademark infringement viewed as a forward confusion. Forward confusion occurs when the junior user palms off his products as those of the powerful senior user. In contrast, the public use the senior user’s trademark to denote the famous junior user’s products in reverse confusion cases. There are significant differences between forward confusion and reverse confusion with respect to the commercial strength of the parties, the nature of damages etc.. The doctrine of “likelihood of confusion” is a core determinant in judging trademark infringement for the purpose of consumer protection. As a specialized form of trademark protection which protects the smaller senior user, it causes new concern whether or not traditional confusion theory can be well employed to reverse confusion. On the other hand, from the perspective of economic efficiency, the fact that only the junior user of reverse confusion cases is capable of developing the mark because of economic power also draws our attention to the problem of how to weigh up the balance between registration protection in trademark law and maximization of trademark values.