Trademark rights are closely related to industry and business development, and accelerating development in industry and business is one of the purposes of protecting trademark rights. Because trademark protection is not absolute, it is necessary to restrict trademark rights, as defined in the regulations of Article 36, Section 1, and Article 84, Section 2, of the Taiwan Trademark Act. In the trademark dispute involving BANANA handbag and Tearing CHANEL, trademark parody constitutes fair use of a trademark that is an issue worth studying. Two cases will be examined in this article: 2011 Su Zi No. 104 (hereafter called the former case) and 2014 Xing Zhi Shang Yi Zi No. 63 (hereafter called the latter case). Even though these two cases-both brought before the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court (IP Court)-resulted in different judgments (one involving administrative procedures and one involving criminal procedures), they were not only about the likelihood of trademark confusion, but also about whether trademark parody could be used as a defense of trademark fair use. In fact, trademark parody issues are broadly discussed in U.S. case law, though the IP Court declined to use U.S. parody theories in the former case. However, the IP Court did use parody theories to refute the defendant’s arguments in the latter case, particularly because it is expected that there will likely be future trademark confusion disputes, and both legal academics and practices should aim to establish identical and fair standards in case law. This article attempts to draw a line between the rights of trademark owners and those of the creators of trademark parodies in U.S. case law in order to provide references for Taiwanese courts, to avoid conflicting judgments in trademark parody cases.