특허법인 남앤남

Ip Materials

Practice Notes

Practice Notes

KIPO moving towards accepting letters of consent to resolve trademark conflicts

All trademark applications in Korea are examined for both absolute and relative refusal grounds, and refusals based on similarity with another party’s conflicting senior mark are commonplace. In fact, KIPO statistics indicate that approx. 40% of office actions issued against trademark applications in 2022 included a refusal ground due to conflict with a senior mark.   In such situations, if the conflicting goods/services of the pending application are important to the applicant and cannot be deleted, trademark practitioners in Korea are often asked whether it is possible to obtain and submit a letter of consent from the owner of the senior mark, expressing their agreement to the co-existence of both marks on the register. This is a topic which has been considered by the IP office in the past, but to date the answer has always been negative, with letters of consent, co-existence agreements etc. not accepted by KIPO examiners.   However, recent developments indicate that change is on the horizon.   Current situation   At present, the only practical way to achieve co-existence of conflicting marks on the register is to unify the ownership of the marks via assignment (with all relevant marks being owned by the same party) until the refusal ground is withdrawn and the junior application is granted registration. At this time, the original ownership can be restored via an assignment in the reverse direction. This is often referred to as a “temporary assignment” or “assign-back” procedure. However, even if both parties are cooperative, the additional complexity in securing agreements and the documentary requirements (notarized deeds of assignment being necessary at each stage, for example) make it significantly more time- and effort-intensive than simply obtaining a letter of consent.   The complexity escalates even further if there are multiple senior marks owned by different parties, in which case unification of ownership may be a practical impossibility. Brand owners are also often unwilling to cooperate in such a procedure if it means relinquishing ownership of their marks — albeit temporarily — even in cases where they do not oppose the registration of the junior application.   Possible changes   In her New Year’s address, KIPO Commissioner Insil Lee specifically mentioned the need for a letter of consent system to enable easier coexistence of trademarks. Following this, a bill with amendments to the Trademark Act was submitted before the National Assembly on March 20, 2023 (link in Korean). The bill proposes the following changes:   Allow a refusal ground based on conflict with a senior mark to be withdrawn if consent from the owner of the senior mark is obtained, except in cases where the respective marks and goods/services are identical. Allow for cancellation of a mark registered based on such consent, should the mark be used anti-competitively and cause consumer confusion. What's next?   While the pending bill is still at the committee review stage and several more steps must be completed before its promulgation into law, considering the current context and opinion surrounding this issue we are optimistic that the proposed changes will pass through the legislative process and eventually come into effect. We will be monitoring the progress of the bill and will report on any noticeable developments.   Written by Jonathan MASTERS

2023-04-27
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Designs in South Korea: partial versus full examination

Introduction   With the entry into force of the 14th edition of the Locarno Classification from 1 January 2023 (which applies to designs filed on or after this date), a number of design articles have moved to different classes. Some examples are set out in the following table.   Previous class New class Article name 21-02 02-01 Waist supports for exercise 28-02 09-05 Lipstick tubes [packaging containers] 03-03 24-05 Crutches 02-03 29-02 Disposable face masks   This is particularly relevant in South Korea as design applications follow one of two examination tracks — partial examination or full examination — based on the Locarno class of the design article.(1) At the time of writing, designs that fall under the following seven Locarno classes are subject to partial examination:   class 01 – foodstuffs; class 02 – articles of clothing and haberdashery; class 03 – travel goods, cases, parasols and personal belongings, not elsewhere specified; class 05 – textile piece goods, artificial and natural sheet material; class 09 – packages and containers for the transport or handling of goods; class 11 – articles of adornment; and class 19 – stationery and office equipment, artists' and teaching materials.   Designs in all other Locarno classes are subject to full examination.   Looking at the examples in the above table, the first two articles will now be subject to partial examination in Korea, while the latter two will go through full examination.   So, what is the difference?   Partial examination   This is a fast-track examination process for designs typically sensitive to trends or that have a short life cycle. The examination stage comprises a check of the following, but does not include a substantive examination of novelty or creativity:   application formalities (eg, applicant details and suitability of drawings); basic formalities (eg, design cannot be similar to national flag or emblem, morally unsound, liable to cause confusion with another party or purely functional); industrial applicability; and limited novelty requirements (cannot be a "widely known" design or a combination of widely known shapes, patterns or colours).   The examination timeframe for partial examination designs is typically around two to three weeks, so protection can be obtained rapidly.   Another feature unique to partial examination designs is the existence of an opposition period following publication (laying open) of the design in the Design Gazette. Due to the limited novelty search carried out during examination, this provides an opportunity for any other parties to oppose the registration. The opposition period is three months from the date of publication. After this time, it is still possible for interested parties to bring an invalidation action.   Most official fees are also lower for partial examination designs, including the application fee (currently ₩45,000 per design) and annuity payments, which are a fixed cost (currently ₩17,000 per year) for the lifetime of the design.   Full examination   As the name implies, this is a substantive examination process that, in addition to the partial examination details above, also includes a comprehensive prior art novelty search.   Reflecting the more involved process, the examination timeframe for full examination designs is considerably longer — currently around six to 12 months. After registration and publication (laying open) in the Design Gazette, there is no opposition period. To contest the registration, an invalidation action must be brought.   The official application fee for full examination designs is more than double that of partial examination designs (currently ₩94,000 per design) and, as with patents, the annuity fee payments increase over the lifetime of the design. Currently, they rise from ₩17,500 per year for years four to six to ₩105,000 per year for years 13 to 20.   Written by Jonathan MASTERS

2023-03-03
READ MORE
Practice Notes

When does use of a trade name not infringe trademark rights? Korean Patent Court considers Trademark Act exception clause.

On November 25, 2022, the Korean Patent Court ruled on a case concerning limitations on the effect of registered trademark rights, specifically dealing with the question of whether one party’s use of a mark containing their own name, title, trade name etc. was “in accordance with generally accepted business practices” and thus outside the scope of rights of a similar registered trademark owned by another party. THE LAW Article 90 of the Korean Trademark Act (“Extent on Which Trademark Rights Do Not Have Effect”) provides that trademark rights do not extend to “[a]ny trademark using [another party’s] own name, title, or trade name, portrait, signature, seal, or well-known pseudonym, stage name, pen name, and the well-known abbreviated title thereof, in accordance with generally accepted business practices”, so long as such usage is not “for the purpose of unfair competition after registration and establishment of trademark rights”. (This wording was amended in 2016; in the old Trademark Act the restriction was applied to trade names etc. used “in a common way”.) The broad purpose of this clause is effectively to limit the effects of trademark rights in view of the intended spirit of the law and public interest. This does not equate to a limitation on the trademark holder’s right to exclusive use of the mark, but rather establishes the conditions under which another party’s use would be acceptable and non-infringing. According to Supreme Court precedent, using a trade name “in accordance with generally accepted business practices” means the name should be used in a way that does not create any special distinctiveness, for example by displaying in a unique font, color, stylization etc., and the location, arrangement, size of the name, combination with other elements, etc. are also considered. Overall, general consumers must be able to recognize that it is a trade name just by looking at the mark in question. Further, a “purpose of unfair competition” is understood as being an intention to obtain unfair profits by freeriding on the goodwill/credit of the registered trademark holder. In deciding on this point, subjective criteria such as the party’s motivation for selecting the mark, awareness of the registered trademark etc., and objective criteria such as similarity between the marks, fame of the registered trademark, similarity in business type and geographical proximity of business activities, as well as the actual use of the allegedly infringing party must be considered. THE CASE Aside from the specifics of the two parties’ respective marks, the complainant argued that the Court should apply the old Trademark Act in hearing this case; several grounds were put forward to support this argument, such as the complainant’s trademark being applied-for and registered before the amended Act came into force, as well as an argument that the wording of the revised Act suggests it should not apply to scope confirmation trials. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, deciding to apply the current (amended) Trademark Act. This meant that the respondent had to show their usage was “in accordance with generally accepted business practices”, rather than “in a common way”. The basic facts of the case are as follows: The complainant is the operator of “HASLLA ART WORLD”, a facility including a museum, gallery, hotel, restaurant and coffee shop (“HASLLA CAFE”), and is the owner of a trademark registration for “하슬라” [“HASLLA”] covering café and restaurant services in Class 43. The respondent is the operator of a café called “하슬라 가배” [“HASLLA GABAE”, where “GABAE” is an old-fashioned way of expressing the word “coffee”]. Both businesses are located in Gangneung City on the east coast of Korea. This case was an appeal from a scope confirmation trial heard by the IP Trial & Appeal Board (IPTAB) in which the complainant sought to show that the respondent’s use fell within the scope of their registered trademark rights. The specific usage in question was the respondent’s store signage shown below, where the smaller sign on the left reads “하슬라” [HASLLA”] written vertically, and the larger sign reads “하슬라 가배” [“HASLLA GABAE”], together with “Café” in English. [Respondent’s store signage] Note: Scope confirmation trials are inter-partes administrative procedures used to determine whether or not a specific usage of a mark falls within the scope of rights of another party’s registered trademark. Such trials are often filed alongside a civil infringement suit in which an injunction, compensatory damages etc. may be sought. As scope confirmation trials are heard by IPTAB subject matter experts, the decision — while not legally binding — may be submitted and carry weight in the civil suit. The Patent Court ultimately dismissed the appeal in favor of the respondent, upholding the IPTAB decision. This means that the defendant’s usage of their trade name “HASLLA GABAE” (in Korean) on signage for a café in Gangneung City is not considered an infringement of the registered “HASLLA” (in Korean) trademark. In reaching this decision, the Court considered the following, among other factors: Use in accordance with generally accepted business practices: The respondent’s trade name is “HASLLA GABAE”, which corresponds to the name used on the sign. The text is not expressed in a way that creates any special distinctiveness, and the addition of the English term “Café” is descriptive of the services offered. “Haslla” itself is the old name of Gangneung City used during the Goguryeo period (37BC – 668AD) of Korean history, and this is common knowledge among residents of the city. “Gabae” is a transliteration of the Chinese characters for coffee, and the term was widely used to refer to coffee during Korea’s period of enlightenment. The respondent seems to have conceived of the name by combining the old name for Gangneung City with the old term for coffee. Signboards with text surrounded by bulbs are commonly found across the country. Purpose of unfair competition: The complainant began operating a coffee shop in 2013, but has referred to it using various names over the years. An internet search for “Haslla Café” (in Korean) reveals posts predominantly concerning the complainant’s coffee shop, but results also contain the respondent’s store. While in the same city, the complainant’s and respondent’s stores are not in close proximity (approximately 17km apart). The concept and interior decoration of the stores are respectively different, with the respondent’s café being based on the theme of the Korean enlightenment period. The name “Haslla” is used in Gangneung City in road names, school and library names, festivals etc. Survey results show a high awareness of the meaning of “Haslla” among Gangneung City residents, and a reasonable awareness among residents of other areas in the same province.   COMMENT This case provides some further clarification on how exceptions to registered trademark rights are considered under Article 90 of the Trademark Act. While the respondent’s trade name in this case included the registered trademark in its entirety and both parties operate similar businesses, this naturally does not mean that usage of a trade name provides blanket protection against trademark infringement in all cases. On the contrary, the way in which the trade name is used was considered in detail in the context of the specific location of the business, and in this case it was not considered that consumers would be confused. Ultimately, trademark owners do not need to be alarmed by this decision as the exception clause does not apply to bad faith usage — in cases of intentional infringement, trademark rights can still be enforced, regardless of whether the infringer is using a trade name.   Written by Jonathan MASTERS and Sang-Eun SHIN

2023-01-07
READ MORE

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

If you agree to use personal information, please check the box.