我國商標法第5條（以下稱本條）對於商標使用之定義，除了客觀上有積極使用商標之行為，而且使相關消費者認識其為商標外，更重要者，乃是具有「行銷之目的」。就以智慧財產法院99年度民商訴字第2號民事判決為例，其判決凸顯出本條中「為行銷之目的」的主觀要件；針對無償散布仿冒商標物品之情況，以非作為商標之使用，所以並不構成商標之侵權，作為結論，實將商標使用之定義，侷限於過窄之範疇，將使被仿冒商標物品之權利人的商標權，無法受到周全的保護。本文建議：未來本條之修正，當參酌加入世界貿易組織「與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定」（World Trade Organization-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS Agreement）第16條第1項中「交易過程」（in the course of trade）之用語，無論贈品是否為商標指定使用之商品，應將這類無償散布贈品之行為，均納入商標使用之範疇，尤其是為避免使用「交易過程」之涵蓋面太廣，故未來法院於適用本條時，仍應斟酌實際之狀況，作為是否為商標使用之妥適判斷。

Defi nitions of ＂trademark use＂ in Article 5 of Taiwan's Trademark Act (hereafter ＂this article＂) included objectively affirmative use of a trademark in order to help relevant customers to know them and most importantly, to have a ＂marketing purposes.＂ For example, the 2010 Case of Min Shang Su Zi No. 2 of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court. (hereafter the IP court) The IP court's decision stated that the subjective requirement of ＂marketing purpose＂ in this article does not include the concept of ＂distribution.＂ Thus, ＂distribution＂ is not the use of a trademark and does not constitute trademark infringement if counterfeit trademark gifts are distributed without payment in consideration. However, the IP court’s holding makes defi nitions of ＂trademark use＂ so narrow that the true legal trademark owner and their manufacturer's right are not fully protected. No matter what counterfeit the trademarks on gifts items are the same as the true legal trademark actual selling items or not, this article should be amended to add the phrase ＂in the course of trade,＂ which would make it similar to Article 16, Section 1 of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in order to include gift distribution within the scope of trademark use. In order to prevent the scope of trademark use over broad, courts have to examine each and every practical situations to judge the use of trademark If the phrase ＂in the course of trade＂ is added to this article in the future.