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.
General legal topic
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
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.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
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.
Frequently asked questions
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.
Study collection
Companies, contracts, and investment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Corporate, governance, and investment advice
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.