SOUTH KOREA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Hwansung Park, Eunwoo (Vera) Lee, Hankil D. Kang and Jung Heo, Lee & Ko
Supreme Court 2024Da311181 Decision rendered on 26 February 2026 In this case, the defendant posted information on its own website under headings such as “Bourguenon- style Reformation” and “Sac Plume BB-style Ref- ormation”, displaying various “reformed” products bearing the Louis Vuitton trade mark. In Korea, the term “reformation” is commonly used in this context to mean the customised alteration or remaking of an existing branded product, such as changing the prod- uct’s shape, size, design, or use while retaining parts of the original product. The defendant also exhibited pre-prepared reformed product samples in its store and, while reworking bags entrusted by the plaintiff’s customers, added logo-bearing parts and leather labels marked with the plaintiff’s name that had not been present on the bags before reformation, then returned the bags to the customers in that altered state. The central issue in the case was whether the display of the trade mark in the course of such refor- mation constituted “trade mark use” under the Trade- mark Act, and further, whether the reformation should be regarded as producing a new product for distribu- tion in the marketplace or merely as a transformation or repair of the product for personal use. The appellate court placed significant emphasis on the possibility that the reformed products might be transferred or exhibited to third parties beyond the original customer, as well as on the risk of source confusion among ordinary consumers, and there- fore found trade mark infringement. In contrast, the Supreme Court held that, in principle, the affixing of a registered trade mark during the reformation of a product by its owner for personal use does not con- stitute “trade mark use” under the Trademark Act, pro- vided that the reformed product does not enter into the general stream of commerce. The Court further held that the same principle applies where a refor- mation service provider carries out the reformation at the owner’s request and then returns the reformed product to the owner. In support of this position, the Court stressed that the Trademark Act has the char- acter of competition-oriented legislation designed to safeguard fair competition and the interests of con- sumers in the marketplace; that trade mark rights are generally exhausted with respect to goods that have been lawfully transferred, so owners may freely use,
Noteworthy Cases IP High Court 2023Na10693 Decision rendered on 22 May 2025 In this case, Chinese company Y advertised and offered for sale, through the Chinese e-commerce platform Alibaba and its own Chinese website (both of which operated servers located in China), products that fell within the scope of the patent rights regis- tered in Korea by L, an Italian manufacturer of sock knitting machines. In doing so, Y provided detailed product specifications in Korean, displayed prices in Korean won, enabled orders and deliveries within South Korea, and offered customer inquiries and con- sultation services in Korean. The central issue in this case – again in relation to the territoriality principle of patent rights – was whether the act of listing a product on a foreign online marketplace or a foreign-based website, with servers located overseas, could con- stitute an “offer for assignment” within the territory of the Republic of Korea. The first instance court, Seoul Central District Court, placed primary emphasis on the location of the serv- ers and held that there was no act of infringement carried out within Korea. However, the IP High Court took a different view, holding that: (i) Y provided product information in Korean on Alibaba and its own website; (ii) customers could place orders and receive deliveries within Korea; (iii) payment could be made in Korean won; and (iv) Y operated an inquiry and consultation channel targeted at Korean consum- ers. Taken together, the Court found that Y’s conduct constituted an effective inducement of sales directed directly at Korean consumers and therefore amounted to an “offer for assignment” within Korea. As a result, the Court concluded that L’s Korean patent rights had been infringed and upheld L’s claim for an injunction. This judgment is widely regarded as the first prec- edent to clearly recognise that a patentee holding a Korean registered patent may assert its rights, includ- ing claims for sales injunctions, against foreign com- panies’ online sales activities. As such, it is seen as an important ruling that establishes a legal standard consistent with the realities of today’s global digital environment.
305 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook