Trademark law revision tackling importation of counterfeit goods comes into effect
An amendment to the Korean Trademark Act aimed at curbing the influx of counterfeit goods from overseas e-commerce platforms has come into effect as of May 27, 2025.
▒ Why is the change necessary
In recent years, Korea has seen a sharp uptick in the number of counterfeit items crossing the border. In the Korea Customs Service (KCS)’s most recent report on IPR seizures, it is stated that a total of 83,892 trademark-infringing items were detected in 2023, representing a significant increase from figures which had hovered around the 30,000 mark between 2019-2021.
This goes hand-in-hand with Korean consumers’ increasing use of overseas direct purchases (i.e. ordering from a seller based overseas and having the item shipped directly to you), with KCS data showing that the total number of overseas direct purchases increased from around 43 million in 2019, to over 96 million in 2022, and over 131 million in 2023.
Counterfeit goods not only damage brand value, but can also pose a direct threat to consumer health and safety. According to a KCS press release, around a quarter of the low-cost jewelry products purchased via popular Chinese e-commerce platforms that they tested were found to contain carcinogens that exceeded domestic safety standards. In another case, counterfeit vitamins led to a patient’s liver function values more than doubling.
In this respect, the Trademark Act was previously ambiguous on the question of whether items purchased directly from overseas by consumers in Korea met the definition of “use of a trademark” when the goods were for personal/non-commercial use.
Though there is legal interpretation (IP High Court Case No. 2011Heo4868) stating that when a Korean consumer purchases goods from a foreign website, ownership is transferred upon receipt in Korea, constituting a “transfer” and qualifying as trademark use under the previous Act, said existing provisions presuppose a commercial basis for trademark use, with personal purchases by individual consumers not clearly being applicable.
Thus, it was widely considered necessary to establish a clearer legal basis for infringement in order for Customs and related agencies to take more effective action against the growing counterfeit problem.
▒ What has changed?
The amendment introduces a new clause under Article 2(1)-11 of the Trademark Act defining the act of supplying, via a delivery agent or other third party, goods (or packages of goods) bearing a trademark which has been affixed abroad, as trademark use.
This revision will work in tandem with KCS’s seizure powers under the Customs Act, which authorizes Customs to suspend clearance when trademark infringement is established, thus giving Customs authorities a much clearer legal basis to block counterfeit imports even when the item was purchased directly by a consumer for their own personal use.
It is not expected that individual consumers purchasing small quantities of counterfeit goods for personal use will be targeted under the revised law, which focuses on the act of “supplying” such goods, but this would not apply to larger-scale imports for the purpose of resale.
(Note that this revision has no bearing on the parallel import of genuine goods, which is generally permitted under Korean law.)
▒ Comments
Customs authorities now having increased power to block counterfeit goods from entering the country will have a significant impact on border enforcement, which had become challenging to manage in the face of ever-increasing cross-border e-commerce. This will result in stronger protections for brand owners and also address consumer health concerns.
With this development, now is a good time for brand owners to review their Korean trademark portfolio and consider actively recording their rights with Korean Customs, particularly for any marks which are subject to counterfeiting. The customs recordal system, under which brand guidelines and enforcement information can also be provided as reference materials, aims to improve the effectiveness of border seizures and will be bolstered by the now-expanded definition of trademark use.
Written by Jonathan Masters and Sang-eun Shin