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.