특허법인 남아이피그룹

The Name behind your Name

Your trusted IP partner in Korea — delivering strategic, precise, and business-focused protection for the client’s success.


Explore NAM IP Group

NAM IP Group is a Korean law firm specializing in intellectual property, serving global clients.

2026
Nam IP Group is a law firm dedicated exclusively to intellectual property.
Built on trust, we are committed to delivering consistent client satisfaction and the highest quality services.
180 +
Professionals
Our professionals are selected based on practice areas
and specific technologies and are trained with the specific
needs of global clients in mind.
1
1
1
1

Latest Updates

Practice Notes

Korea Expands Online Oral Hearings in IP Trials

▒ Improved Access to IPTAB Proceedings The Korean IP trial system is becoming more accessible for both domestic and foreign parties.    Beginning in July 2026, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB) — the administrative tribunal within Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) — will fully implement internet-based video oral hearings.   Under the new system, parties and their representatives may attend oral hearings through the Korean government’s "On-Nara" PC video conference platform, without physically appearing at the IPTAB hearing room in Daejeon, where MOIP is located, or at its Seoul branch office. This is expected to reduce travel time and cost and improve access to trial proceedings.   Until now, participation in IPTAB oral hearings has required physical attendance in Korea. Going forward, overseas parties may also be able to participate directly from abroad in eligible cases.   ▒ Oral Hearings in Korean IP Trials Proceedings before the IPTAB include patent, utility model, trademark and design matters, including cancellation and invalidation trials, scope confirmation trials, correction trials, and appeals from examiner decisions. Although these proceedings are administrative in nature, they often have a significant impact on the enforcement and validity of intellectual property rights in Korea.   IPTAB trials may proceed through written submissions or oral hearings. While written briefs and evidence remain central, oral hearings are often useful in technically complex or commercially important cases. They allow the parties to explain technical issues, legal arguments, evidentiary matters and the commercial context directly to the panel of administrative judges.    Oral hearings are most common in patent disputes, particularly where complex technical issues are involved, but they may also be held in trademark and design cases if the panel considers that live argument would assist its understanding of the issues, or if a party specifically requests a hearing.   For foreign IP owners and challengers, oral hearings can be a valuable opportunity to ensure that key technical and strategic points are clearly presented. They may also help Korean counsel address questions from the panel in real time.   ▒ Key Features of the New Online System The newly expanded internet-based oral hearing system allows parties and representatives to participate from a wider range of locations, including offices, homes, and overseas locations. According to MOIP, participants in the pilot program conducted in the first half of 2026 positively evaluated the reduced travel burden and the ability to attend hearings without location restrictions.   A party may request an internet-based oral hearing when applying for an oral hearing. If a hearing date has already been designated, a request to change the format to an online oral hearing may be submitted.   However, the system is available only for public oral hearings. Because participants may connect from locations outside the physical control of the IPTAB, MOIP has limited internet-based oral hearings to cases where public hearing is permitted. For non-public hearings, the existing in-person format or the current remote video hearing system through MOIP’s Seoul office will continue to apply. Hearings may be declared non-public where they involve trade secrets or confidential business information, or where public attendance could be contrary to public order or good morals.    In 2025, 582 oral hearings took place at IPTAB, including 392 in-person hearings in Daejeon and 190 remote video hearings at the Seoul office. Of these, only 6 hearings were non-public.   ▒ Practical Implications for Foreign IP Owners The new system may make it easier to monitor and participate in Korean proceedings. In-house counsel, inventors, technical experts, or business personnel may be able to join hearings remotely, subject to procedural requirements and case-specific approval.   This may be especially helpful in cases involving complex technologies such as electronics, semiconductors, batteries, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, telecommunications, and advanced manufacturing. Remote participation could improve coordination between Korean counsel, foreign counsel, and technical teams, while reducing travel-related costs.   However, it should still be noted that IPTAB proceedings are conducted in Korean, and the introduction of online participation does not change the language of the hearing. Accordingly, non-Korean speakers would still need to arrange for interpretation assistance.   Overall, the new internet-based system is expected to further modernize Korean IP trial practice and make IPTAB proceedings more accessible to global IP stakeholders. Foreign companies involved in Korean IP disputes should consider at an early stage whether an oral hearing would be strategically beneficial and whether online participation may be available in their case.  

2026-06-23
READ MORE
Practice Notes

From Repair to Rebirth: Korean Supreme Court Sets Out Criteria for Luxury Reform

▒  SUPREME COURT DECISION (Case 2024Da311181 | February 26, 2026) In our previous articles (see here and here), we detailed the first and second instances of an ongoing legal battle between a luxury brand owner and a local "reform" (upcycling) service provider.   Both the Seoul Central District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court had previously sided with the plaintiff, ruling that the defendant's act of deconstructing genuine bags to create entirely new products (such as wallets or smaller accessories) constituted "trademark use" that infringed upon the brand's rights.   However, in a landmark ruling issued on February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of Korea reversed and remanded the matter back to the appellate court, in doing so clarifying the legal landscape for upcycling and personal property rights in Korea.   ▒ THE SUPREME COURT’S REASONING The Supreme Court took a significantly narrower view of what constitutes "use of a trademark" under the Trademark Act compared to the lower courts, with the core of the ruling resting on the distinction between use in the private domain and that of a commercial offering.    The Court held that if a product owner alters or upcycles a genuine branded item for personal use and does not offer it for sale or circulate it in the market, the act does not constitute "trademark use" and therefore cannot be an infringement. Crucially, the Court extended this protection to third-party service providers. It reasoned that since an owner has the right to reform their own property personally, they must also be free to seek the assistance of technical experts to exercise that right.  As long as the service is performed at the specific request of the owner for their personal use and the item is returned to them, the reformer is generally not liable for infringement.   While the lower courts focused on whether the reformed item was a "new" product that damaged the identity of the original, the Supreme Court emphasized that trademark protection is intended to maintain fair competition in the marketplace, with use confined to the private domain not impacting a brand's business reputation or consumer interests in the commercial market.   ▒  "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF Nonetheless, the Court did not grant upcyclers (reform service providers) free reign to do as they please, but clarified that trademark infringement may still be established under "special circumstances" where a reformer's actions cross into commercial production. To determine if a reform service should be deemed a commercial sale, courts must consider:   Background and content of the reform request Purpose, form and quantity of the reformed products Who made the final decisions during the reform process Nature of compensation received by the reform service provider Source of materials supplied for the reformed product, and the proportion of such materials in the finished product Ownership of the reformed product (Joint liability may arise if the reformer was aware that the owner intends to offer the goods commercially, rather than keep the reformed product for personal use)   The burden of proving these special circumstances lies squarely with the trademark owner.   ▒ COMMENTS The Supreme Court itself acknowledged that this matter was being closely watched by courts from around the world, including the US, Japan, and Europe, and given the level of scrutiny and societal impact the ruling could bring, held a public hearing regarding the case in December 2025. In the end, the court’s reasoning is largely in line with that of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in their comparable January 2024 ruling (Decision 4A_171/2023) dealing with the customization and upcycling of branded luxury watches.   For brand owners, it will not be enough to show that a product was "materially altered" in a trademark infringement claim, and instead they must prove that the reformer is effectively operating as a commercial manufacturer per the “special circumstances” detailed above.    The decision may be seen as a victory for reformers and upcyclers, but caution is required. Service providers should ensure they maintain clear records of customer requests and avoid dominating the design process to ensure their work remains firmly within the "personal use" exception.   The ruling is also notable for its explicit mention of social values. The Court noted that upcycling is often driven by a desire for environmental sustainability and the expression of individuality. By allowing reforms for personal use, the Court sought a resolution that balances trademark protection with the freedom of ownership and resource circulation.  

2026-04-07
READ MORE
Comparative Law

Comparison of Patent Examination Systems and Request Requirements (IP5)

Patent examination procedures vary by jurisdiction, with the primary difference being whether a Request for Examination is required. While Korea, Japan, China, and Europe follow a request-based system, the United States automatically initiates examination upon filing.    1.  Comparison of Patent Examination Systems Country Examination System Separate Request? Deadline for Request S. Korea (MOIP) Substantive examination begins only after a formal request. Yes Within 3 years from filing Japan (JPO) Substantive examination begins only after a formal request. Yes Within 3 years from filing China (CNIPA) Required for Invention Patents; Utility Models undergo only formal review. Yes Within 3 years from filing Europe (EPO) Initiated after the applicant receives the Extended European Search Report (EESR). Yes Within 6 months of the search report publication USA (USPTO) Automatically enters the examination queue upon filing. No N/A    2.  Regional Specifics Korea & Japan: Applicants can delay the examination to monitor market trends or business viability. If the request is not filed within 3 years, the application is deemed withdrawn. China: While Invention Patents require a request, CNIPA processes Utility Models and Designs without a substantive examination to allow for faster registration. Europe: The EPO provides a search report first. The applicant must then decide whether to proceed with the substantive examination based on the results. USA: There is no separate "Request for Examination" step. The examination fee is included in the initial filing fees. For faster results, applicants often use the USPTO Track One prioritized examination program.    3.  Accelerated Options: PPH Regardless of the country, an applicant can utilize the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) to speed up the process. If the applicant’s patent is approved in one country, the applicant can request an expedited examination in others based on those results.

2026-02-10
READ MORE

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

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