In a recent IP High Court decision (Case No. 2024Na10768 | 13 November 2025), the Court revisited a commercially important question in trademark law: does using a registered trademark to trigger sponsored search results constitute trademark use even if the mark does not appear on the advertiser’s website?

The decision aligns with established Korean precedent and confirms that such conduct can amount to trademark use, while also underscoring the Court’s continued restraint when it comes to statutory damages. Read on for more details.

▒  BACKGROUND

The plaintiff owned a registered trademark for “Norimaru” that had been used continuously for many years in connection with infant seating products. The defendant operated a business selling competing infant cushions. These products were aimed at the same consumer group and sold largely through internet-based marketplaces. 

The dispute arose from the defendant’s use of sponsored search advertising on a major Korean portal site. Under the defendant’s advertising campaign, when users searched for the plaintiff’s trademark, the defendant’s products appeared prominently at the top of the search results page as a sponsored or “related” advertisement.

▒  FACTS OF THE CASE: Sponsored Search and Automated Keywords

The defendant argued that it had never directly designated or purchased the keyword “Norimaru”. Instead, it claimed that the keywords triggering its advertisements were automatically generated or expanded by the advertising platform based on factors such as product descriptions, categories, and user behavior, and the trademark was not intentionally selected.

It was also undisputed that the plaintiff’s trademark did not appear in the defendant’s product listings. From the defendant’s perspective, consumers therefore never encountered the trademark as a badge of origin for the defendant’s goods, and any association created at the search stage was incidental and outside the defendant’s control.

The Court did not accept this explanation. It observed that advertisers are able either to directly select keywords for sponsored search advertising or to adopt keywords recommended by the platform. Moreover, the defendant was able to monitor, on a monthly basis, how often users searched for and clicked on the relevant keyword and were redirected to the defendant’s marketplace listings. In light of these circumstances, the Court found it difficult to accept that the defendant was unaware of the use and effect of the plaintiff’s trademark as a trigger for its advertisements.

Against this background, the Court treated the search results screen itself as the relevant advertising medium and focused on consumer perception at the moment of search. Because the defendant’s sponsored listing appeared specifically in response to searches for the plaintiff’s trademark and was positioned to attract consumers seeking the plaintiff’s branded products, the Court found that the trademark played a role in drawing attention and diverting traffic. This was sufficient for the trademark to function as a source-identifying sign in advertising, even though it did not appear on the landing page.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that reliance on automated keyword-generation systems does not relieve an advertiser of responsibility. Where a business benefits commercially from sponsored search advertising and retains the ability to select, monitor, and control keyword usage, it may be found at fault if a third party’s trademark is used in a manner that infringes trademark rights. On the facts of the case, the Court ultimately recognized the defendant’s negligence in relation to the infringement.

▒  DAMAGES

Although trademark infringement was established, the Court was restrained in its assessment of damages. The plaintiff sought statutory damages under Article 111(1) of the Trademark Act and, on appeal, claimed KRW 20 million (approximately USD 15,000).

However, evidence showed that sales directly attributable to the keyword advertising were extremely limited — less than KRW 20,000 (roughly USD 15). Emphasizing that statutory damages are compensatory rather than punitive, the Court ultimately awarded KRW 3 million (approximately USD 2,200), an amount that acknowledged the infringement while remaining proportionate to its actual commercial impact.

▒  LEGAL BACKDROP: the VSP decision

The reasoning in the subject case aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Case No. 2010Hu3073 (the “VSP” decision), which addressed whether sponsored search advertising triggered by another party’s registered trademark constitutes trademark use.

In VSP, the Supreme Court held that where an advertiser purchases the right to use certain keywords from an internet portal operator, and sponsored links or website addresses appear on the search results page when users input those keywords, the keyword search results screen itself constitutes advertising. The Court reasoned that such advertising visually conveys information about goods to general consumers and therefore falls within the definition of “use of a trademark” for the purposes of trademark law.

In doing so, the Supreme Court emphasized that trademark “use” is not confined to traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, catalogues, signboards, or television, but also encompasses the provision of visual information about goods to consumers through internet search result screens. In the context of keyword advertising, this makes consumer perception at the search stage a key criterion in assessing trademark use.

▒  PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This decision illustrates the consistency of the Korean approach to keyword advertising. Courts will look closely at what consumers actually see on the search results page and how sponsored listings interact with trademark searches, regardless of whether keywords are selected manually or generated through automated systems.

For brand owners, the decision confirms that enforcement against keyword advertising remains viable in Korea even where the trademark does not appear on the advertiser’s website. At the same time, expectations regarding damages should be managed, as even a successful infringement claim may result in a modest award absent evidence of meaningful economic harm. Advertisers, for their part, should be aware that the ability to monitor and control keyword usage can give rise to responsibility under Korean trademark law.