Natural resources have formally been placed in the WTO subsidy regime since Softwood Lumber IV. In this case, governmental transfer of forest harvesting rights was found to be a financial contribution, thus capable of a countervailing subsidy, by the art of legal interpretation. Since then, a number of natural resource subsidy disputes have been brought to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and their adjudicators have had opportunities to revise and refill the past jurisprudence. However, natural resource endowment likely connotes the natural comparative advantage of the possessed countries; therefore, countervailability against such trade advantage appears at odds with the rationale of the subsidy rules. This article sketches the jurisprudential foundation and development of the natural resource factor under the multilateral subsidy regime. In fact, putting natural resources under the grasp of the subsidy rules has been a brave move of the WTO adjudicators. The article contends that the current market-oriented benchmarking system could be incompatible with the non-market functions of the natural resource endowment. This writing also presents that the current trade conflicts over natural resource exploitation reflect our past unfinished works.