특허법인 남앤남

The Name behind your Name since 1952

We, NAM IP Group is here to dream your dream and ready to pave the way for the client's success


Explore NAM IP Group

NAM IP Group has a long history of working experiences with global clients.

2025
With a proud history as Korea's oldest IP law firm, we commit to continue
to provide the best service for your success as we have always done for 70 years.
  • 0
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
1
1
1
1
1
1

Latest Updates

Practice Notes

Mass Registration Programs and Trademark Liability: South Korean Court Highlights Growing Risks in E-Commerce

Introduction   A recent ruling by the Korean IP High Court underscores an important shift in how courts assess trademark infringement risks in online marketplaces. At first glance, the case appears to be a standard counterfeit product dispute, but a closer analysis reveals a deeper issue.   The ruling highlights how the use of mass product registration tools — which allow sellers to list thousands of items on sales platforms automatically — can lead to uncontrollable trademark violations, exposing sellers to significant legal liability.   With automated bulk listing tools becoming increasingly popular among cross-border e-commerce sellers, this case serves as a stark warning: Sellers who prioritize speed and volume over control may face serious trademark infringement consequences.   Case Background   In IP High Court Case No. 2024Na10942 (Jan 23, 2025), the defendant, an online purchasing agency, used a mass product registration program to list thousands of products from Chinese e-commerce platforms on their own website. The system automatically imported product details, images, and prices — including, unintentionally, counterfeit goods.   The plaintiff, a trademark owner of well-known footwear brands, sued for trademark infringement, arguing that the defendant had displayed and sold counterfeit products using trademarks identical to their registered marks.   Defendant's Arguments   The defendant contended that: They had no direct involvement in selecting counterfeit products. The mass registration tool was merely a neutral listing mechanism and not intended for trademark infringement. It was impossible to manually verify each product, given the scale of automated listings. However, the Court dismissed these defenses, holding the seller liable for trademark infringement.   Key Findings of the Court   1.    Mass Registration Tools Do Not Exempt Sellers from Liability The court rejected the argument that a seller can avoid liability simply because a tool, rather than manual selection, was used to list the products. The defendant chose to use a system that inherently carried the risk of importing counterfeit listings at scale, and therefore, bore responsibility for the consequences. 2.    The Burden of Risk Falls on the Seller The court reaffirmed that ignorance of the infringement is not a valid defense. Even if the seller did not intend to list counterfeit goods, the act of using a high-volume, automated listing tool meant that they knowingly accepted the risk of IP violations occurring. 3.    Platform-Level Responsibility May Become a Legal Focus The ruling reflects growing judicial recognition that unchecked mass registration tools can enable widespread trademark violations. Courts may begin holding platforms accountable if they fail to impose reasonable controls on mass listings. These findings align with a 2013 Supreme Court decision (2013Da21666), which placed strict liability on businesses engaging in sales activities where they could have reasonably been aware of potential trademark conflicts.   The Bigger Issue: Mass Registration and the Breakdown of Seller Control   While this case technically deals with counterfeit product registration, the real issue is the systemic risk posed by mass product registration tools.   1. How Mass Registration Leads to IP Infringement The widespread adoption of bulk listing tools — popular in Korea, China, and other major e-commerce markets — is driven by sellers seeking to maximize revenue. These tools allow thousands of product listings to be imported in minutes, but in doing so, sellers lose control over product authenticity checks, verification of trademark compliance, and listing accuracy.   As a result, infringement is no longer a deliberate act, but an unavoidable byproduct of automation. The defendant in this case is just one example of many sellers facing IP disputes they did not foresee or actively intend to commit.   2. The Rise of Mass Registration Tools and Legal Risks YouTube tutorials and online seller training programs actively promote the use of mass product registration tools. Many sellers blindly rely on automation, assuming platforms or software providers will filter out infringing items — which often does not happen. This case highlights how IP owners are increasingly taking legal action against sellers who use such tools without safeguards. 3. Should E-Commerce Platforms Restrict Mass Registration? Given the frequency of trademark disputes arising from mass product registration, there is a strong argument that e-commerce platforms should intervene to reduce legal exposure for sellers.   Potential regulatory solutions include (i) limiting the number of simultaneous product uploads per seller within a given timeframe; (ii) implementing AI-driven screening for trademarked products before listings go live; and (iii) requiring sellers to manually confirm product authenticity for bulk uploads.   These measures would not prohibit online sales but would create a balance between e-commerce efficiency and IP protection, preventing unnecessary litigation and financial penalties for sellers.   Conclusion   This IP High Court ruling is more than just another counterfeit case — it signals a legal shift in how courts view mass registration and seller liability.   For sellers using automated bulk listing tools, this case should serve as a wake-up call that: Speed and convenience do not override legal responsibility. If a tool increases infringement risks, the seller must account for them. Failure to manage product listings can lead to costly legal consequences. As e-commerce continues to evolve, online platforms, sellers, and regulatory bodies must find ways to prevent mass registration from becoming a loophole for widespread IP violations. Otherwise, IP litigation will only escalate, creating an unsustainable future for digital commerce.

2025-02-13
READ MORE
INSIDE NAM IP

World Trademark Review (WTR) Korea’s Top Law Firms & Individual Rankings

NAM IP Group and Managing Partner Ben Yuu have been recognized as top-ranked in the Prosecution and Strategy category of the WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals 2025.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Updated annually, the WTR 1000 evaluates leading law firms and individuals, recognizing top experts in areas such as trademark prosecution and litigation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            This recognition reflects NAM IP Group’s strong reputation as a premier trademark specialist on the international stage, and serves as a valuable reference point for companies seeking expert guidance on global brand protection strategies.

2025-02-13
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Revised Patent Term Extension System in Korea: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry

Background Unlike patent systems in other countries, under the previous Korean Patent Act, there was no time limit from the marketing approval date for patent term extensions for pharmaceutical patents, and there were no restrictions on the number of patents that could be extended for a single regulatory approval, thereby allowing extensions of multiple patents — such as compound, use, formulation, and dosage regimen patents — based on a single drug approval.  The domestic pharmaceutical industry has expressed concerns that Korea’s patent term extension system has led to prolonged monopolies by foreign drug developers in the Korean pharmaceutical market, which, in turn, delayed the introduction of cheaper generic drugs, and as a result, disproportionately favors those patent holders when compared to systems in other countries, including the United States and Europe. Critics argue that the delayed market entry of Korean local generics limits public access to affordable medications and could strain health insurance finances. Amended Patent Act On December 27, 2024, in response to these concerns, the National Assembly of Korea passed a revision to the Patent Act with the following key provisions: (i) the patent term cannot exceed 14 years from the date of marketing approval, and (ii) only one patent per approval is eligible for extension. The revised Patent Act is expected to be promulgated as early as January 2025 and will come into effect six months after its promulgation, likely in July 2025. This revision will apply to patent term extension applications filed after its effective date. Lawmakers explained that the purpose of the revision was to address the lack of a cap on patent terms and the absence of limits on the number of patents eligible for extension, aiming to prevent delays in the release of generic drugs, and ensure early public access to medications, as well as to align Korea’s system with international standards, particularly those in the United States and Europe. Under the revised Patent Act, there is no change to the provision allowing for a maximum five-year extension, but a new additional cap has been introduced, limiting the total extension to 14 years from the date of approval, in line with US practice. Implications While the full impact of the revised patent term extension system is still uncertain, initial analyses suggest that it may lead to shorter patent terms for original drugs. Only for the purpose of explanation, there may be extreme cases where the impact of the new cap could be significant. For instance, when marketing approval is granted within six years from the international filing date, and the patent term is extended for about three years in Korea, the revised 14-year cap could result in only about four months of extension, despite a prior three-year extension (please refer to the following diagram).  Furthermore, for monopoly drugs where the revenue during the extended patent term exceeds the revenue during the original term, the consequences could be considerable. However, 2023 data on the status of effective patent terms for pharmaceuticals from 1999 to 2021 issued by the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) shows that about 82% of pharmaceutical patents have an effective patent term of under 14 years, suggesting that extensions expire within 14 years from the approval date. As such, the new 14-year cap may have limited impact in many cases.  As a test, we applied the 14-year cap to 15 randomly-selected historic PTE cases handled by our office, and all resulted in extensions within the 14-year limit.  Perhaps the most significant change introduced by the revised Patent Act may be the limitation on the number of patents eligible for extension per product approval. Previously, multiple patents could be extended based on a single drug approval, for example, the above-mentioned data from MFDS also shows that the number of patent registrations exceeds the number of approvals by a factor of 1.7, which indicates that multiple patents may have been registered for a single product. Now, only one patent may be selected for extension. This is likely to have a notable impact on the strategies of original drug companies, as they may now need to focus on extending only one patent (substance patent or a secondary patent) to maximize their patent term. In contrast, generic companies will more easily be able to anticipate when the one extended patent of the original drug expires and this simplification may reduce the complexity of their market entry strategies. Additionally, the revised Patent Act clarifies the starting point for patent term extensions, specifying that the extended period due to delayed registration (Patent Term Adjustment, PTA) will be clearly defined. This ensures greater transparency and consistency in calculating patent term extensions based on regulatory approvals. The revised Patent Act also introduces provisions for rejecting applications for extension that exceed the 14-year cap, as well as allowing for invalidation petitions. If multiple patents are submitted for extension based on a single approval, none will be granted an extension.  Given these changes, patentees should be mindful of these new provisions when filing patent term extension applications after July 2025 in Korea.

2025-01-03
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Upcoming Korean Trademark Act amendments, including shorter period for opposition

On December 27, 2024, the Korean IP Office (KIPO) announced that a bill including several Trademark Act amendments had passed the plenary session of the National Assembly. The amendments will take effect six months after the law's promulgation and are expected to come into effect around July 2025 (precise date not yet known). The amendments include a shorter opposition period and increased punitive damages for willful trademark infringement, as discussed below: SHORTER OPPOSITION PERIOD (2 months → 30 days) Under Korean trademark practice, all applications are substantially examined for both absolute and relative refusal grounds, and once the examiner is convinced that no relevant grounds for refusal exist, the application is published for the purposes of inspection and opposition. Following the publication date, any party can object to the registration of the mark by filing an opposition with KIPO.  The current deadline for filing an opposition is 2 months from the publication date of the application, but this will be shortened to 30 days. (The opposition deadline itself cannot be extended. However, provided a formal notice of opposition is filed by the opposition deadline, the opponent is granted a further 30 days to substantiate the grounds for opposition via submission of a supplemental brief. The submission deadline for the supplemental brief can be extended for up to 60 days for national applications, but not for Madrid applications.) As discussed in an earlier article, this change is in response to the increasing timeframe for trademark applications achieving registration.  By cutting the opposition period approximately in half, non-opposed applications will progress to registration around a month quicker, and as it is reported that only around 1% of all applications are opposed, the vast majority of applications will thus benefit from the amendment. While good news for applicants, this does mean that brand owners will have less time to make a decision on whether or not to oppose a potentially problematic application, and watch service notifications will need to be reviewed and acted on more urgently. INCREASED PUNITIVE DAMAGES (3x → 5x) Provisions for treble damages in trademark and design infringement cases were first introduced in October 2020, following similar earlier provisions for patent and unfair competition cases. With patent and unfair competition laws introducing up to quintuple damage awards in amendments that took effect earlier this year (as reported here), it is now the turn of the Trademark Act to benefit from further strengthened damages provisions. Willful/intentional acts of infringement that take place on or after the effective date of the amendment may be subject to up to 5x punitive damages.  While the availability of treble damage awards was seen as a big step forward in addressing the need for stronger deterrents against infringement in Korea, where historical damage awards were not seen as sufficient to outweigh the profit that could be gained from infringement, the increase to quintuple damages aims to further discourage willful/intentional violations of trademark rights through higher financial consequences, as well as offer better compensation for trademark owners who often struggle to provide concrete evidence of the financial harm caused by infringement, for example in cases involving loss of market reputation or other indirect financial impacts.

2024-12-30
READ MORE

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

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