Abstract: Item 6， Article 57 of the Trademark Law takes trademark indirect infringement as the object of regulation， and limits the object of regulation to the contributory infringement under the subjective intentional control of the actor. This kind of regulation limits the behavior patterns that can be adjusted by the trademark indirect infringement system， and results in insufficient system supply in the face of various forms of indirect infringement. The contradiction between the diversified forms of infringement and the narrow adjustment scope of legal regulations is more prominent. In judicial practice， there are some dilemmas， such as admitting the duty of care but denying the liability of negligent infringement， confusing the subjective “knowing” and “should know” of the actor， and replacing the legal “intentional” elements with the actor's “fault”. We should confirm the multiple fault forms of trademark indirect infringement in legislation， expand the scope of adjustment of the regulation provisions of trademark indirect infringement from “intentional” infringement to “fault” infringement， distinguish “knowing” and “should know”， and introduce “presumptive knowing” rules to realize the diversification of the liability for infringement damages.

Key words: trademark indirect infringement; intentional infringement; negligent infringement; pattern of fault