특허법인 남아이피그룹

PROSECUTION

Our prosecution practice covers patents, utility models, trademarks, and designs in Korea and key jurisdictions worldwide. We develop filing and prosecution strategies that reflect the specific requirements of each matter, with a focus on securing commercially meaningful and enforceable IP rights.

KEY SERVICE

  • • Strategic advice on Korean filing and prosecution
  • • Drafting and filing patent and utility model applications
  • • PCT national phase entry and Paris Convention applications
  • • Translation and localization of patent specifications and claims
  • • Review and amendment of claims in accordance with Korean practice
  • • Responses to Office Actions, including examiner interviews and amendment strategies
  • • Requests for re-examination and appeals against final rejections
  • • Filing and prosecution of trademark applications, including Madrid Protocol designations
  • • Filing and prosecution of design applications, including Hague System designations
  • • Divisional applications, converted applications and other prosecution-related filings
  • • Registration, annuity payments, renewals and portfolio maintenance
  • • Recordation of assignments, licenses and changes to applicant or rights-holder

Related Professionals

Chang-hak SHIN Partner

Kwan-ju PARK Sr. Patent Attorney

Seo-wu LEE Patent Attorney

Justin HWANG Partner

Hai-Hua ZHANG Foreign Attorney(CN)

Seo-young LEE Partner

Si-yong LEE Partner

Young-joo YOUN Sr. Patent Attorney

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

  • • Electrical, Electronics, IT & Telecommunications
  • • Semiconductors, Displays & Semiconductor Equipment
  • • Software, Artificial Intelligence & Digital Technologies
  • • Mechanical Engineering, Mobility & Robotics
  • • Advanced Materials, Batteries & Energy Technologies
  • • Chemistry, Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
  • • Trademarks, Designs & Brand Protection

Related Contents

Practice Notes

Key Considerations for Employee-Invention Compensation Following Korea’s Introduction of Automatic Succession

1. Key Change Under 2024 Amendment: Automatic Succession of Employee Inventions A 2024 amendment to the Korean Invention Promotion Act significantly changed the mechanism by which employers succeed to rights in employee inventions.   Under the previous framework, even where an employment agreement or employment regulations provided that the employer would succeed to rights in employee inventions, the employer generally had to separately notify the employee of its decision to succeed to the invention after receiving the employee’s invention report.   Under the amended Act, where an employment agreement or employment regulations provide in advance for the employer’s succession to rights in employee inventions, such rights, in principle, automatically vest in the employer upon completion of the invention. As a result, companies may substantially simplify the individual succession procedures that were previously required.   2. Automatic Succession and Employee-Invention Compensation are Separate Issues The introduction of automatic succession does not eliminate an employer’s obligation to compensate employee inventors.   The Invention Promotion Act requires “reasonable compensation” for employee inventions. However, it does not require employers to provide separate categories of compensation for succession, patent filing, patent grant, implementation, or other specific events.   Accordingly, where a company’s existing “succession award” was essentially a fixed payment triggered by the completion of the formal succession procedure, the introduction of automatic succession provides an opportunity to reconsider whether such a separate award should be maintained or instead integrated into other components of the company’s inventor compensation program.   The key issue is therefore not whether a particular category of compensation continues to exist, but whether the overall compensation framework provides reasonable compensation under Korean law.   3. Establishing Uniform Compensation Framework Companies, particularly multinational companies, may wish to replace Korea-specific succession awards with a compensation framework that is more closely aligned with their global inventor award programs.   In considering whether the compensation provided under the program as a whole can be regarded as reasonable, factors such as the overall level of compensation, the economic benefit obtained by the employer from the invention, the inventor’s contribution, and the manner in which the compensation program is established and administered are taken into account.   Accordingly, a company may establish a uniform compensation program centered, for example, on filing and grant awards. What is important is that the company establish objective and consistent compensation standards applicable to employee inventions and administer those standards in a fair and transparent manner.   4. Addressing Exceptional High-Value Inventions on Case-by-Case Basis In practice, it is extremely difficult to accurately determine the future economic value of every invention at the time of filing.   An invention that appears relatively insignificant when filed may later become a core technology or generate substantial licensing revenue. Conversely, an invention initially regarded as strategically important may ultimately have little or no commercial use.   It is therefore neither practical nor necessarily desirable to design an overly complicated compensation policy intended to anticipate every exceptional circumstance.   A more practical approach is to apply uniform compensation standards as a general rule while maintaining a mechanism for case-by-case review where an invention generates exceptional economic value or an inventor raises a reasonable concern regarding the adequacy of the compensation received.   Employee-invention compensation disputes remain relatively exceptional compared with the overall number of employee inventions handled by companies. It may therefore be inefficient to design or materially modify an entire compensation system solely around the possibility of such unusual cases.   5. Compensation for Former Employees and Changes to Existing Policies One issue that deserves particular attention when applying a global compensation program in Korea is any requirement that the inventor remain employed at the time an award becomes payable.   For example, if a grant award is available only to inventors who remain employed when the patent is granted, an inventor who completed the invention and contributed to the patent filing may be excluded solely because he or she left the company before the patent was granted.   Employee-invention compensation is different in nature from an ordinary employee welfare benefit or retention incentive. Accordingly, a policy that categorically excludes former employees from compensation solely on the basis of their employment status should be carefully reviewed under Korean law.   Companies should also consider Korean employment law requirements when modifying an existing inventor compensation program. For example, if an existing succession award is eliminated, it may be necessary to consider whether the change constitutes an unfavorable amendment to the applicable employment rules and, if so, whether the relevant procedural requirements have been satisfied.   6. Conclusion The 2024 amendment to the Korean Invention Promotion Act allows companies to substantially simplify the process for succeeding to rights in employee inventions. Automatic succession, however, concerns the mechanism for acquiring rights and does not eliminate the separate requirement to provide reasonable compensation for employee inventions.   At the same time, companies should not necessarily attempt to design a complicated compensation formula capable of anticipating every exceptional case.   A more practical approach is to establish reasonable and uniform baseline compensation standards, administer them consistently and transparently, and maintain an appropriate mechanism for reviewing exceptional cases individually where concerns regarding compensation arise.   Such an approach can allow companies to take advantage of the simplified succession framework introduced by the amended Act while reducing administrative burdens and continuing to satisfy the fundamental principle of reasonable compensation for employee inventions under Korean law.

2026-08-10
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Korea Expands Online Oral Hearings in IP Trials

▒ Improved Access to IPTAB Proceedings The Korean IP trial system is becoming more accessible.    Starting from July 2026, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB) — the administrative tribunal within Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) — will fully implement web-based video oral hearings.   Under the new system, parties and their representatives may attend oral hearings via 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 improve access to trial proceedings while reducing travel time and costs.   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 IPTAB 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 based on written submissions and/or oral hearings. While written briefs and evidence remain central, oral hearings are often useful in technically complex or commercially important cases as 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 IP owners and challengers, oral hearings can be a valuable opportunity to ensure that key technical and strategic points are clearly presented.    ▒ Key Features of the New Online System The newly expanded system allows for participation in oral hearings from a wider range of locations, including offices, homes, and even 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 a web-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.   The system will only be available for public oral hearings. Because participants may connect from locations outside the physical control of the IPTAB, MOIP has limited web-based oral hearings to cases where public hearing is permitted. For non-public hearings, the existing formats 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.    According to IPTAB data there were 582 oral hearings in 2025, including 392 in-person hearings in Daejeon and 190 remote video hearings at the Seoul branch office. Of these, only 6 hearings were non-public.   ▒ Practical Implications for Foreign IP Owners The new system should make it easier to participate in Korean proceedings. In-house counsel, inventors, and technical experts 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, board-approved interpretation would still be required for non-Korean speakers wishing to present to the panel.   Overall, the new web-based system is expected to further modernize Korean IP trial practice and make IPTAB proceedings more accessible to global IP stakeholders. Parties involved in Korean IP disputes should consider whether an oral hearing would be strategically beneficial and whether online participation could be advantageous.

2026-06-23
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Is Keyword Advertising Considered Trademark Use in Korea?

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.

2026-01-09
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Amendments to Korean Design Law: Strengthened Protection for Genuine Rights Holders & Tighter Controls on Partial Examination Filings

Effective 28 November 2025, amendments to the Design Protection Act came into force in Korea. These changes aim to curb the misuse of the partial examination system and provide stronger remedies for genuine design owners. ▒  BACKGROUND: “Partial Examination” System Korea operates two examination tracks for design filings: “full examination” and “partial examination”. Full examination is comparable to standard examination in other jurisdictions and includes full examination of both novelty and conflicts with senior applications/registrations. For designs subject to full examination, examiners review a wide range of substantive requirements, but examination takes around seven months on average (based on 2024 data). On the other hand, partial examination offers greatly expedited registration for industries with rapid design cycles, e.g., apparel, fashion accessories, stationery, textiles, packaging, and similar goods. Specifically, designs falling under Locarno classes 01, 02, 03, 05, 09, 11 and 19 are subject to partial examination. Under this system, novelty and conflicts with senior design rights are not examined in detail and only certain basic requirements such as application formalities, industrial applicability and limited novelty requirements (the application could not be an easily created combination of widely known shapes, patterns or colors) were reviewed. Due to the simpler process, official fees are lower and registration can be achieved within weeks.  Another feature unique to partial examination designs is the existence of an opposition period following publication (laying open) of the design in the Design Gazette. Due to the limited novelty search carried out during examination, this provides an opportunity for any other parties to oppose the registration. The opposition period is three months from the date of publication.  The motivation for offering partial examination is to allow businesses that operate on extremely short design cycles to secure design rights before trends change or copied versions appear in the market.  However, the system has been vulnerable to abuse, with cases of applicants registering already-published designs, re-registering expired or cancelled designs, and using such illegitimate registrations as the basis for sending infringement notices, demanding takedowns, or pressuring legitimate competitors. As examiners lacked statutory authority to reject partial-examination filings even when novelty defects were apparent, improper registrations routinely slipped through.  The amendments directly address these systemic vulnerabilities. ▒  WHAT IS CHANGING? 1. Stronger Examination for Partial-Examination Designs Examiners may now reject partial-examination applications where a clear lack of novelty or conflict with a senior application/registration is detected. This is expected to dramatically reduce “bad-faith” or opportunistic registrations, offer better protection for genuine creators whose designs are already public, and also contribute to a more predictable and trustworthy design-right landscape for fast-cycle industries. 2. Extended Opposition Period if Genuine Rights Owner Receives Infringement Notice The standard opposition window remains three months from publication. However, in practice, businesses may only discover an illegitimate registration after receiving a cease-and-desist letter or a marketplace takedown request. The amendment provides that if a party receives an infringement notice, they may file an opposition within three months of receiving the notice, provided no more than one year has passed since the publication date of the design.  This should allow genuine rights holders to challenge improper registrations without being penalized for missing the initial publication window, and allow for faster removal of rights used for unfair enforcement or e-commerce disruption. 3. New Design Ownership Transfer Claim This newly adopted mechanism mirrors the patent ownership transfer system introduced in 2017. Before the amendment, if another party registered your design, unless they were willing to assign the rights voluntarily, it was necessary to invalidate the registration and re-file the application. This has obvious negative implications such as loss of priority date, lack of enforceability, as well as time and financial constraints. Following the amendment, the rightful rights owner may now petition the court for a direct transfer of the registered design right to themselves, without needing to file a new application. This maintains the original registration date and affords the rightful owner an immediately enforceable right as soon as the transfer judgment is issued. Additional provisions include protection for good-faith non-rightful owners via statutory non-exclusive licenses, issuance of a new registration certificate to the rightful owner, and restrictions on invalidation challenges against the transferred right from the illegitimate registrant. ▒  FINAL COMMENTS With partial examination filings representing around 40% of all Korean design filings in 2024, closing loopholes in the system should be highly impactful across multiple industries. Further, the new design ownership transfer claim allows genuine creators to reclaim misappropriated registrations without invalidation or re-filing, preserving the original filing date and ensuring uninterrupted, fully enforceable rights. These amendments represent a meaningful improvement of Korea’s design-rights system and contribute to a more balanced and reliable environment for design protection and enforcement.

2025-12-01
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

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