本文得出下列幾點結論：公平交易法第二十條不排除註冊商標，表徵之功能重在區別而非來源，識別力之特徵無庸特別顯著，相關事業或消費者普遍認知之表徵需具備極高之知名度；公平交易法應可採取德國關於混淆之虞的概念與種類的通說，然而公平交易法既應該在商標所不能及之處補充商標法，因此並無必要將對標誌之保護限於商品或服務之來源，而可及於對商品或服務本身之混淆以及對表徵之主體的混淆。「未註冊之外國著名商標」應為「在外國之著名商標」，未來應善用公平交易法第二十條第三項規定，要求附加適當區別表徵;公平會應有權不受理財力雄厚表徵權利人之槍舉案件；淡化之虞的防止並非公平交易法第二十條所窮盡規範，尚有公平交易法第二十四條適用的可能。

This paper comes to the following conclusion: Article 20 of the Fair Trade Act does not exclude registered marks; the function of marks lie in distinguishing goods or services and not in indicating their sources; the character of the distinguishing ability needs not to be “distinctive”; the Fair Trade Act complements the Trademark Act in that it covers the confusion about the goods or services per se and the legal subject to which they belong; The Fair Trade Commission should be able to refuse to take complaints from resourceful undertakings, who can protect their rights by civil actions. Dilution is not covered by Article 20, and is subject to Article24 of the Fair Trade Act.