Judicial principles and studies
Preservation of Evidence in Urgent Trademark Infringement Requests
A brief summary of the conditions for requesting preservation of evidence in trademark infringement cases, emphasizing the need for existing, specified evidence and prohibiting substantive expert probes that affect the substance of rights or disclose trade secrets.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The applicable provision treats preservation of evidence in trademark infringement as an urgent remedy available to the rights holder who proves that infringement occurred or is imminent and that irreparable harm may result or that evidence may disappear or be destroyed. The request must satisfy the urgency conditions set by civil procedure rules, notably the requirement not to affect the substance (root) of the underlying right.
Summary
Evidence sought for preservation must already exist and be specified with certainty; the remedy is not intended to create new evidence or to collect unspecified proof, nor to compel the opponent to produce evidence contrary to evidence law. Broad substantive expert investigations—such as detailed forensic accounting of the respondent’s commercial records or unrestricted access to company computers and emails to create or extract communications—constitute interference with the substance of the right and risk disclosing trade secrets, and therefore do not qualify as mere preservation of evidence and are unlawful under the cited framework. This is a general educational summary, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
Applicants should narrowly describe the evidence to be preserved and avoid seeking expansive forensic inquiries into accounts or electronic communications. The urgent judge’s role is limited to provisional measures that do not alter the parties’ legal positions or decide the merits of the dispute.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.