특허법인 남아이피그룹

The Name behind your Name

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

2025
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
1
1
1
1
1
1

Professionals

Ben (beyong-ho) YUU

Managing Partner

Byung-kyu KIM

Partner

Chang-hak SHIN

Sr. Patent Attorney

Jae-hwan SIM

Partner

Ji-woong KIM

Partner

Jonathan MASTERS

Trademark Attorney (AU)

Kwei-rye HA

Partner

Min-kyeong SHIN

Sr. Patent Attorney

Bo-ra KIM

Patent Attorney

Jae-woo BYEON

Sr. Patent Attorney

Kwan-ju PARK

Sr. Patent Attorney

Seo-wu LEE

Patent Attorney

Seon-young KIM

Sr. Patent Attorney

Na-ra YI

Patent Attorney

Justin HWANG

Sr. Patent Attorney

Hai-Hua ZHANG

Foreign Attorney(CN)

Reiko TOMONAGA

Regional Expert (Japanese)

Sang-hun JUNG

Sr. Patent Attorney

Seo-young LEE

Partner

Seung-whan KIM

Partner

Si-jung LEE

Partner

Si-yong LEE

Partner

Sung-wook KIM

Partner

Woo-hyun NAM

Partner

Yong-kyun KIM

Sr. Patent Attorney

Young-joo YOUN

Sr. Patent Attorney

Young-jun CHOI

Sr. Patent Attorney

Young-min KIM

Partner

Latest Updates

Practice Notes

Toward “K-Discovery”? Discovery Reform under South Korea’s New Administration and Its Implications for Patent Litigation

Discovery reform in South Korea has attracted growing attention in recent years—especially in the context of patent and trade secret disputes, where plaintiffs often struggle to access internal evidence critical to proving their claims. The absence of a general discovery framework is widely seen as a gap in Korea’s IP enforcement regime. During his campaign, the country’s newly elected president pledged to introduce a “Korean-style discovery system” as part of his judicial reform agenda. Now, with the new administration in place and relevant bills already on the table, the groundwork appears set for change that could reshape the contours of litigation in Korea. ▒  Background South Korea does not maintain a general pretrial discovery system akin to that of the United States. Whereas U.S. litigation features broad, adversarial, and largely party-driven discovery procedures, Korean civil litigation is tightly court-controlled, with limited mechanisms for evidence collection. These differences in procedural approach have meaningful implications for IP enforcement. In patent litigation, for instance, plaintiffs—despite bearing the burden of proving both infringement and damages—have few procedural tools to compel disclosure of internal materials such as technical schematics or manufacturing data. As a result, evidentiary asymmetries between plaintiffs and defendants are common, particularly in method-claim or trade-secret disputes where critical evidence is solely in the hands of the alleged infringer. Certain provisions in the Korean Patent Act are designed to alleviate the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs. Notably, a 2019 amendment introduced a new article requiring defendants to disclose relevant records when infringement is plausibly alleged, or risk having the allegations deemed established. However, as with similar provisions, courts retain wide discretion and remain cautious in exercising it, limiting the practical impact of these measures. ▒  Growing Institutional and Political Momentum Against this backdrop, calls for a more structured and proactive discovery system have continued to gain momentum, supported by years of institutional engagement by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the judiciary, and the legislature. A comprehensive 2023 report by the National Assembly Research Service (NARS), for instance, emphasized the need for discovery reform—while also cautioning that any Korean-style system must remain under judicial control and align with Korea’s civil law tradition. This issue was picked up in the recent presidential campaign. President Lee Jae Myung identified discovery as a key tool to combat technology theft and strengthen IP enforcement, pledging to introduce reforms aimed at addressing evidentiary asymmetries by enabling parties to effectively compel disclosure of relevant materials. This commitment was mentioned in his “Top 10 Key Policy Pledges” submitted to the National Election Commission, under the broader objective of restoring procedural fairness and advancing judicial reform. In this context, two significant discovery-related bills have already been introduced by the ruling Democratic Party—one in August 2024 and one in April 2025. Both propose amendments to the Civil Procedure Act and are currently pending before the National Assembly. ▒  Key Features of the Proposed K-Discovery System Based on the pending bills, the president’s campaign platform, and the prevailing discussions, the emerging contours of a Korean-style discovery system are likely to include:    ●   Strengthened court-ordered document production: Expanded authority for courts to compel production of relevant materials, with enforceable              sanctions for unjustified non-compliance.    ●   Court-appointed expert inspections: Authority for courts to designate neutral experts to conduct on-site investigations, particularly where                      documentary evidence is impractical.    ●   Pre-trial witness examinations: Procedures for early-stage witness testimony and evidence preservation to clarify key facts ahead of trial.    ●   Protective orders and confidentiality safeguards: Authority for courts to conduct closed hearings or limit access to sensitive materials in cases                involving trade secrets, balancing disclosure needs with confidentiality. Given the legislative alignment and lack of political opposition on this issue, these reforms appear poised to move forward. ▒  Implications for Patent Enforcement If enacted, these reforms could materially improve plaintiffs’ access to key evidence, significantly altering the patent litigation landscape. They would enable:    ●   Access to internal sales and production data critical for calculating damages.    ●   Inspection of manufacturing facilities or servers to confirm infringement.    ●   Pre-trial witness examination to clarify issues of control, knowledge, or willfulness.    ●   Greater leverage in settlement negotiations, backed by enforceable procedural rights. Taken together with recent substantive developments—such as the introduction of enhanced punitive damages for willful patent infringement (up to five times actual damages)—a more effective discovery regime would represent a significant procedural advance and enhance Korea’s standing as a forum for patent disputes.

2025-06-24
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Is Fertilizer Eligible for Patent Term Extension in Korea?

Background   Patent Term Extension (PTE) systems worldwide aim to compensate patent holders for the time lost during regulatory approval processes for certain products. In Korea, the Patent Act allows for patent term extensions for inventions that require regulatory approval before commercialization. However, the scope of eligible products is specifically defined and limited by the Patent Act Enforcement Decree.   The question of whether fertilizers registered under Korea's Fertilizer Control Act qualify for PTE has gained attention as the agrochemical industry seeks clarity on patent protection strategies. This issue becomes particularly relevant when considering that internationally, the term "agrochemicals" encompasses both pesticides and fertilizers, leading to potential confusion about the scope of patent term extensions.   Understanding the answer requires examining the specific legal framework governing PTE eligibility and the policy rationale behind limiting coverage to certain categories of agricultural products.   Current Legal Framework   Under the current Korean Patent Act Enforcement Decree, PTE eligibility is explicitly defined. The Decree specifies that patent term extensions are available for inventions implementing patented technology where agricultural chemicals have been registered under the Pesticide Control Act pursuant to Articles 8(1), 16(1), or 17(1) of that Act. Importantly, this applies only to agricultural chemicals or active ingredients containing new substances as active ingredients and registered for the first time.   The Korean Pesticide Control Act defines "pesticides" as including: (i) fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides used to control pests that harm crops; (ii) agents used to promote or inhibit the physiological functions of crops; and (iii) other agents prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.   Notably absent from this framework is any mention of the Fertilizer Control Act. The Enforcement Decree does not include product approvals under the Fertilizer Control Act as qualifying for PTE applications, creating a clear regulatory distinction between pesticides and fertilizers for patent term extension purposes.   Regulatory Separation: Pesticides vs. Fertilizers   Korea maintains separate regulatory frameworks for pesticides and fertilizers, reflecting different safety and efficacy concerns. The Pesticide Control Act, administered by the Rural Development Administration, governs substances designed to control pests or regulate plant physiological functions. In contrast, the Fertilizer Control Act regulates substances primarily intended to provide plant nutrition or improve soil conditions.   This regulatory separation has important implications for patent term extensions. While some substances might theoretically fall within the boundary between pesticide and fertilizer regulations—such as plant growth regulators, microbial soil conditioners, or trace element complexes with physiological effects—the PTE framework specifically requires registration under the Pesticide Control Act.   The distinction becomes clearer when considering that fertilizer registration with local authorities (city-/county-/district-level) follows a different pathway than pesticide registration, which requires national-level approval and extensive safety and efficacy testing similar to pharmaceutical products.   Policy Rationale and International Practice   The limitation of patent term extensions to pesticides rather than fertilizers reflects a consistent international approach. Similar to other major jurisdictions, including the European Union's Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system, patent term extensions are typically reserved for products requiring extensive regulatory testing and approval processes comparable to pharmaceuticals.   This policy choice recognizes that pesticides, like medicines, must undergo rigorous safety and efficacy evaluations that can significantly delay market entry, thereby eroding the effective patent protection period. Fertilizers, while subject to registration requirements, generally follow different approval pathways that do not involve the same level of extensive testing.   Boundary Areas and Complexity   Some substances present classification challenges that highlight the complexity of the regulatory landscape. Plant growth regulators, for instance, may be regulated as pesticides under the Pesticide Control Act when used for specific physiological effects (such as flowering promotion or fruit drop prevention), while similar substances might be classified as fertilizers when used primarily for nutritional purposes.   Despite these boundary areas, the legal framework for PTE remains clear: registration under the Fertilizer Control Act alone does not qualify a product for patent term extension, regardless of the substance's potential dual regulatory pathways or its classification in international contexts.   Implications   The answer to whether fertilizers are eligible for PTE in Korea is definitively no. Products registered solely under the Fertilizer Control Act do not qualify for patent term extension under the current legal framework.   This limitation reflects a consistent international approach and has several important implications for the agrochemical industry. Patent holders must carefully consider their regulatory strategy when seeking both patent protection and market approval for agricultural products in Korea. The choice of regulatory pathway may affect not only the approval timeline and requirements but also the availability of patent term extension.   The scope of Korea's PTE system, while limited to pesticides, aligns with international practice in focusing on products that require extensive regulatory testing similar to pharmaceuticals. This approach provides clarity and administrative efficiency while ensuring that patent term extensions are available where the regulatory approval process most significantly impacts the effective patent protection period.   For substances that might qualify for registration under both pesticide and fertilizer regulations, the regulatory pathway chosen could determine PTE eligibility. However, such choices must be made based on the substance's actual intended use and regulatory requirements, not solely for patent term extension purposes.   Understanding these limitations is crucial for patent practitioners and agrochemical companies operating in Korea, as it affects both patent prosecution strategies and commercial planning for agricultural innovations. While the exclusion of fertilizers from PTE eligibility may initially appear restrictive, it reflects a well-established international approach that balances the need for innovation incentives with clear regulatory boundaries.

2025-06-20
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Borderless Principle of Territoriality – Patent Law

Introduction   Patent law has long developed around the principle of territoriality. That is, a patent granted in one country has effect only within the borders of that country and cannot be enforced against acts occurring in another jurisdiction. Patent registration and enforcement are independently handled under each national legal system.   However, with the rise of the global digital economy and the proliferation of online platforms, it has become increasingly common for acts occurring in one country to directly target markets in another. In such cases, the limitations of traditional territoriality become apparent, and there is a growing need to reinterpret its boundaries. The principle of territoriality becomes blurred. A noteworthy case that reflects this issue is the decision rendered by the Korean IP High Court in Case No. 2023Na10693 (May 22, 2025). Case Overview   This case involves an Italian company (“A”) holding a patent for sock knitting machines, which filed a lawsuit against a Chinese company (“B”), claiming that B’s actions in China infringed its Korean patent rights. Plaintiff A alleged that Defendant B manufactured infringing products in China and either sold or advertised them for sale in Korea.   The court acknowledged that B did manufacture the products in China but found the evidence insufficient to prove actual sales in Korea. However, it was confirmed that B had advertised the products in Korean on Chinese e-commerce platforms and its own website (hosted on servers located in China), and had established a system enabling Korean consumers to make purchases. The decision focused on two key issues:   Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Korean Courts in International Cases   As this case involved a foreign plaintiff (Italian) suing another foreign defendant (Chinese) for alleged infringement of a Korean patent, a key issue was whether the Korean court had international jurisdiction.   The court relied on Article 2(1) of the Act on Private International Law which allows Korean courts to have international jurisdiction if the parties or the subject matter of the dispute has a substantial relationship with Korea.   The court evaluated the substantial relationship by focusing on (a) whether the result of the infringement occurred in Korea; and (b) whether the defendant’s advertising activities targeted Korean consumers.   It concluded that since the advertisement was clearly aimed at Korean consumers and the infringement effect took place within Korea, Korean courts had proper jurisdiction.   Furthermore, Article 39(1) of the same Act specifically provides that in IP infringement cases, a lawsuit may be brought in Korea if the result of the infringement occurred in Korea or the infringing act was directed toward Korea.   Issue 2: Whether Overseas Advertising Constitutes Patent Infringement in Korea   Under Korean patent law, an “offer for sale” is a form of patent infringement. The main question here was whether B’s advertising activities—carried out on Chinese platforms and websites—could be deemed an “offer for sale” in Korea.   The defendant had provided product information in Korean, allowed payment in Korean Won, enabled ordering and delivery within Korea, and provided customer support for Korean consumers. Accordingly, the court determined that these actions constituted a practical attempt to induce sales to Korean consumers and thus qualified as an “offer for sale” in Korea. Conclusion   The court ultimately recognized the jurisdiction of Korean courts and ruled that the defendant’s advertising activities constituted an infringement of Korean patent rights. A permanent injunction was issued.   This case demonstrates how the principle of territoriality is being expanded and reinterpreted in the digital age. The traditional border-based limitations of patent rights are increasingly being neutralized in the online environment, and courts in various jurisdictions are now focusing more on actual impact and targeted markets rather than formal geographical boundaries.   Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court has taken a similar approach. For example: In a 2022 ruling (July 20), it held that transmitting software from a foreign server to a device in Japan constituted “providing” the program invention. In a 2023 ruling (May 26), it found that transmitting system patent components from a foreign server to a device in Japan amounted to “manufacturing” and upheld infringement. In stark contrast to trade wars fought over rigid national borders, the expanding reach of patent rights across virtual borders is, to me, a personally fascinating development.

2025-06-13
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Korean trademark opposition period reducing to 30 days from 22 July 2025

Previously reported amendments to the Korean Trademark Act, including a shorter opposition period and increased punitive damages for willful trademark infringement, will come into effect from 22 July 2025. Given the impact this could have on decision-making processes, brand owners and agents who deal with Korea as part of their practice are advised to take careful note. Further details below. ▒  SHORTER OPPOSITION PERIOD (2 months → 30 days) [Applies to applications published after the amendment comes into effect] The current deadline for filing an opposition is 2 months from the publication date of the application, but this will be reduced to just 30 days. The opposition deadline itself cannot be extended. However, per existing practice, it will still be possible to file a formal notice of opposition to meet the deadline, and substantiate the grounds for opposition via submission of a supplemental brief within a further 30 days. (The later submission deadline for the supplemental brief can usually be extended for up to 60 days for national applications, but not for Madrid applications.) The change is part of KIPO’s efforts to reduce the timeframe for trademark applications achieving registration.  While good news for applicants, who can expect their applications to register slightly quicker than before, any party who may wish to oppose the registration of a trademark application will have less time to make such a decision, so watch service notifications and the like will need to be reviewed and acted on more urgently.   ▒  INCREASED PUNITIVE DAMAGES (3x → 5x) [Applies to acts of infringement which occur after the amendment comes into effect] The current Trademark Act allows for up to 3x damages in cases of willful/intentional acts of infringement. This will increase to up to 5x punitive damages.  The increase to quintuple damages aims to further discourage willful/intentional violations of trademark rights through higher financial consequences, as well as offer more reasonable compensation for trademark owners who may have difficulty precisely quantifying the actual damages that have been incurred. 

2025-06-12
READ MORE
Practice Notes

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

2025-06-06
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Korean Supreme Court confirms supremacy of registered exclusive trademark license agreement over earlier unregistered license

In a 27 March 2025 decision (No. 2024Da306691), the Korean Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning competing license rights granted by a trademark owner. In short, the Court confirmed that an unregistered non-exclusive license is not enforceable against a subsequently registered exclusive licensee, even where the non-exclusive license predates the grant of the exclusive license.  The case is likely to have an impact on licensing practice in South Korea, and highlights the value of timely registration with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), a step which to date has not always been routinely carried out.  ▒  CASE BACKGROUND The matter involved a trademark owner who first granted a non-exclusive license to one company in July 2021, allowing use of a registered trademark throughout Korea. The parties had planned a joint business venture involving the production and sale of branded food products, but the business relationship deteriorated by late 2021. This non-exclusive license was not registered at KIPO. According to the trademark owner, the non-exclusive license was conditional on successful joint business formation and became void when such cooperation failed to materialize. In March 2022, the trademark owner granted an exclusive license for the same trademark to another company, and this license was registered with KIPO. When the non-exclusive licensee continued using the mark, the trademark owner and exclusive licensee asserted infringement under the Korean Trademark Act. A summary of the lower court decisions leading to the recent Supreme Court ruling is as follows: 1st Instance (Busan District Court | 7 June 2023) The Court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that: •    The non-exclusive license was implicitly conditional on joint venture success. •    That condition failed, so the license was void. •    The non-exclusive licensee’s use of the mark infringed the trademark and exclusive license. 2nd Instance (IP High Court | 24 October 2024) Upon appeal by the non-exclusive licensee, the IP High Court reversed the lower court’s findings, ruling that: •    There is no evidence that the license was conditional. •    The non-exclusive license remained valid. •    Use of the trademark by the non-exclusive licensee was authorized and not infringing.   ▒  SUPREME COURT RULING On appeal by the trademark owner and exclusive licensee, the main issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether the unregistered non-exclusive license granted to the defendant could override the rights of the exclusive licensee who had registered their license at KIPO.  With respect to the trademark owner, the Court ruled as follows: •    The IP High Court’s finding concerning the validity of the non-exclusive license is affirmed. •    The trademark owner’s claim that the license had terminated due to business failure is rejected for lack of clear contractual conditions or evidence. However, with respect to the exclusive licensee, the Court ruled as follows: •    An exclusive licensee has the exclusive right to use the mark within the licensed scope (Article 95(3) of the Trademark Act). •    A non-exclusive license which is not registered cannot be asserted against an exclusive licensee (Article 100(1)-1 of the Trademark Act). •    Thus, the non-exclusive licensee cannot rely on its unregistered license to defend against a claim of infringement. The Court remanded the case to the IP High Court to determine whether the defendant’s use constituted an infringement and whether damages or an injunction are warranted. The relevant provisions from the Korean Trademark Act are produced below for reference: Article 95 (Exclusive License) (1) A trademark right holder may establish an exclusive license on others in relation to his or her trademark rights. … (3) An exclusive licensee who has obtained establishment of the exclusive license under paragraph (1) shall exclusively possess the license of the registered trademark on designated goods to the extent determined by the establishment of the exclusive license. Article 100 (Effect of Registration of Exclusive License or Non-Exclusive License) (1) None of the following matters shall be effective against third parties unless they are registered: 1.    Establishment, transfer (excluding transfer by inheritance or other general succession), amendment, extinguishment by abandonment or restrictions on disposition of the exclusive license or the non-exclusive license; (2) Where the exclusive license or the non-exclusive license is registered, it shall also have the effect on any person who acquires the trademark rights or the exclusive license after registration thereof. ▒  TAKEAWAYS AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE This decision is a clear reminder that the registration of licenses can be beneficial — and in certain cases, critical.  Formally registering non-exclusive licenses at KIPO has not been considered mandatory as the license relationship can usually be proven if and when required (e.g. to defend against a non-use cancellation action based on licensee use). However, as unregistered licenses cannot be asserted against third parties, licensees may in future wish to request that their rights are recorded in the trademark register to safeguard against future problems. From the perspective of a non-exclusive licensee, registration is also beneficial in that rights are preserved even if the trademark rights are assigned to another party (per Article 100(2) of the Trademark Act). Concurrent exclusive and non-exclusive licenses for the same trademark may co-exist in the register provided they differ in scope, i.e. cover different goods/services and/or different regions. Presumably, had the non-exclusive license in the subject case been registered at KIPO and remained valid, the later registration of the exclusive license (covering the same goods and territory) would have been refused on the ground of conflicting rights. This case does not discuss the issue of a trademark owner granting conflicting or overlapping licenses to different parties. As this scenario is not explicitly addressed in the Trademark Act, an affected licensee would likely have to rely on other means such as a contractual claim if they wished to pursue recourse against a licensor. With this in mind, to protect interests and also provide a basis for a legal claim should a dispute arise, licensees may be wise to request the inclusion of registration obligations and non-compete licensing clauses in future Korean license agreements, and IP-owning licensors should be aware of the increased likelihood of licensees making such requests.  Once a trademark license is registered at KIPO, it remains valid on the register until the date of expiry stated in the license agreement (which cannot exceed the term of protection of the trademark right being licensed), unless the registration is cancelled upon agreement of both parties. Practically, such cancellation requires a mutual termination agreement executed by both the licensor and licensee. Should there be a dispute between the parties and mutual agreement cannot be reached, a court decision rendering the license void or invalid may be required before KIPO will cancel the registration. (In other words, a registered license cannot be cancelled based on unilateral assertions of one party absent such evidence.)  Thus, it is imperative to conduct due diligence before entering into an agreement, including verification of the existence/non-existence of any earlier licenses, and the scope of any license being granted — goods/services, territory, and duration — must be carefully considered and defined.    Written by Jonathan Masters and Sang-eun Shin

2025-04-28
READ MORE

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

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