Kim & Chang Ann Kwon, Sung-Nam Kim, Si-Yul Lee and Nayoung Kim
1. Sources of Law
1.1 What are the principal sources of law and regulation relating to trade marks and trade mark litigation? (Briefly describe the role of international, federal or state laws and relevance of court decisions, list and briefly describe relevant statutes and international treaties).
The principal source of law relating to trade marks in Korea is the Trade Mark Act (‘TMA’), which was first enacted in 1949. Well-known marks (even if not registered) can be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (‘UCPA’).
Many procedural provisions of the Patent Act also apply to the TMA. The general provisions of the Criminal Law apply to criminal sanctions for trade mark infringement, while the Criminal Procedure Act applies to investigation, indictment and trial procedure. The Civil Procedure Act sets forth the civil remedies for trade mark infringement. The Customs Tax Act provides for the protection of trade marks at national borders. Trade mark rights may be limited under the Fair Trade Act or the Act on Investigation of Unfair Trade Practices and Remedies Against Injury of Domestic Industry. In addition, Fair Trade Commission (‘FTC’) Guidelines establish standards for permitting parallel imports.
In addition, international conventions to which Korea is a signatory – such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (effective as of 1 March 1979), Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (effective as of 4 May 1980), WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (effective as of 1 January 1995), Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for Purposes of the Registration of Marks (effective as of 8 October 1999), Trade Mark Law Treaty (effective as of 25 February 2003), and Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (effective as of 10 April 2003) – have the same legal effect as domestic laws.
Court decisions are also recognised as an important legal source, although they do not have a binding effect as in common law jurisdictions.
1.2 What is the order of priority of the relevant sources, ie which take precedence in the event of a conflict?
Since Korea is a civil law jurisdiction, legislation prevails over case law. Further, international treaties (although rarely cited) prevail over the TMA.
2. Court and Administrative System
2.1 Can third parties oppose/request cancellation of a national or supranational (eg Benelux, Madrid Agreement and Protocol, Community Trade Marks) trade mark application/registration in your country? If so, on what grounds? Please briefly describe the opposition/cancellation procedure(s).
Under the TMA, any third party may oppose a trade mark application upon publication. Further, before publication, any third party may submit information to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (‘KIPO’) against the grant of registration.
To file an opposition, the opponent must submit the opposition grounds and supporting evidence within two months of the publication date. If the opposition is dismissed, the opponent cannot appeal the decision. However, an invalidation action may be filed against the mark after registration.
The opposition grounds are substantially the same as those barring registration, e.g., the mark being generic, descriptive or otherwise non-distinctive, or similar to a third party’s senior registered or well-known mark.
2.2 In which courts are trade marks enforced? Are they specialised trade marks courts? If not, what level of expertise can a trade mark holder expect from the courts?
Enforcement issues are handled by general civil and criminal courts. Although there are no specialised trade mark courts in Korea, the Seoul Central District Court (and a few other District Courts) has panels specialising in intellectual property cases.
2.3 To what extent are courts willing to consider, or are bound by, the opinions of other national or foreign courts that have handed down decisions in similar cases?
Court precedents are not binding, but can influence later courts addressing similar legal issues. Korean courts may also refer to foreign decisions, particularly in the absence of local legislation or case law.
2.4 Do the courts deal with infringement and invalidity simultaneously? Or must invalidity actions be brought in separate proceedings? If so, before which court or national or supranational government agency shall they be brought (eg the national Trade Mark Office or the OHIM in Alicante)?
While infringement issues are dealt with by the civil or criminal courts, validity issues are separately dealt with in the first instance by the Intellectual Property Tribunal (‘IPT’) within KIPO. The IPT hears trade mark invalidation, cancellation, and scope confirmation actions, in addition to final rejection appeals. IPT decisions can be appealed to the Patent Court, while infringement decisions issued by District Courts are reviewed by the High Court. Both Patent Court and High Court decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court as the final level of appeal. Further, while the courts cannot invalidate or cancel trade marks, such issues can be raised as part of infringement action proceedings (eg, as a defence argument).
2.5 Who can represent parties before the courts handling trade mark litigation and/or the national or supranational government agency dealing with trade mark validity issues?
Attorneys-at-law (admitted to the Korean bar) may represent parties in a trade mark litigation, while patent/trade mark attorneys (admitted to the Korean patent bar) can represent parties in invalidation proceedings.
2.6 What is the language of the proceedings? Is there a choice of language?
The only available language for the proceedings is Korean. If foreign language documents are submitted as evidence, a translation must also be submitted.
3. Substantive Law
3.1 To what extent are unregistered trade marks protected under your country’s laws?
Korea has a registration-based (not use) system for the protection of trade marks. Thus, in principle, registration is required for trade mark protection. However, the UCPA is available to protect unregistered, but well-known trade marks (as source identifiers). The three requirements to prevail in an UCPA action are: (i) the asserted mark must be well-known in Korea as a source identifier; (ii) the cited use must be similar or identical to the well-known mark; and (iii) likelihood of confusion or dilution exists as a result of the similarity.
3.2 How is trade mark infringement assessed? Does protection extend to translations or to conceptually identical but graphically different trade marks?
Trade mark similarity is determined based on pronunciation, appearance and meaning. Among the above factors, precedent has generally placed the greatest emphasis on pronunciation. Thus, protection extends to ‘transliterations’ or to conceptually identical but graphically different trade marks. However, the same does not always apply to ‘translations’ of a trade mark (particularly when the average Korean consumer is not likely to recognise the meaning of a foreign language mark). Notwithstanding the above, courts do consider the overall circumstances when judging infringement, eg, the defendant’s bad faith, evidence of actual confusion in the market, the level of sophistication of targeted consumers, etc. The above is in contrast to KIPO’s relatively rigid practice of judging similarity based only on appearance, pronunciation and meaning.
3.3 Are there other causes of action for trade marks (eg dilution)?
The UCPA establishes trade mark dilution as a type of unfair competition and an independent, actionable ground for taking legal action. Acts of tarnishing the distinctive character or reputation of a well-known source identifier by commercially using an identical or similar mark are prohibited. Further, the UCPA also prohibits the registration, maintenance, transfer or use of a domain name similar to another party’s well-known source identifier for the purpose of: (i) selling or renting the domain name to the rightful owner; (ii) interfering with the rightful owner’s registration and use of the domain name; or (iii) obtaining commercial gain. The UPCA also prohibits using a trade mark that is identical or similar to a trade mark protected in any member country of the Paris Convention, the World Trade Organization, or the Trade Mark Law Treaty, in connection with goods identical or similar to the goods of the protected mark, by a person who is or was (within the past year) an agent or a representative of the trade mark owner, without due cause.
3.4 Can a trade mark be enforced against a domain name, a trade name, a pseudonym or other distinctive signs?
A trade mark can be enforced against marks which are used as source identifiers. However, trade mark rights do not extend to common indications of a person’s own name, trade name, signature, seal, ‘famous’ pseudonym, professional name or pen name, or well-known abbreviations (except where such use was made with unfair competitive intent after trade mark registration). Further, precedent has held that the registration and use of a domain name do not constitute trade mark infringement, but that the use of a mark on a website may raise trade mark infringement issues.
3.5 On what grounds can a trade mark be invalidated?
The grounds for invalidation are substantially identical with those barring registration; ie, the mark being generic, descriptive or otherwise non-distinctive, or identical or similar to a third party’s senior registered or well-known mark. Further, if the registered trade mark becomes non-distinctive after registration, it also becomes subject to invalidation. Separately, grounds for cancellation include ‘non-use’ and ‘improper use’. Non-use occurs when a registered trade mark is not used by its owner or licensee without justifiable reason during the three year period immediately preceding the cancellation trial filing date. Improper use occurs when the trade mark owner creates consumer confusion with another party’s mark by using its mark on non-designated goods or an altered version of its mark on the designated or non-designated goods
3.6 Must use requirements be satisfied to maintain the trade mark registration? If so, is there any definition of what constitutes use?
As noted above, a trade mark which is not used for a three year period is subject to cancellation for non-use. Any interested party may file such non-use cancellation action, and the burden to prove use falls on the registrant. Under the TMA, trade mark use is defined as: (i) using the trade mark on goods or packaging; (ii) selling or delivering such goods or packaging, or exporting or importing the same for the purposes of sales or delivery; or (iii) using the trade mark on advertisements, price lists, business documents, signboards or labels, or displaying or distributing the same.
3.7 What other defences, if any, are available to an alleged infringer? Does your country’s law provide for prior user rights?
An alleged infringer may argue that the trade mark owner is not the rightful owner, and obtained the trade mark in bad faith in order to free ride on another party’s well-known mark and to abuse its trade mark rights for unjust profits. Although somewhat uncommon, such arguments have been accepted in several cases. Further, as to prior user rights, the TMA provides that a prior user has the right to continuously use its mark without infringing a later-registered identical or similar mark (limited to those filed after 1 July 2007), if the following conditions are met: (i) the prior user was using its mark before the later registration’s filing date without any bad faith intent; and (ii) the prior user’s mark is recognised as a source identifier by Korean consumers through such prior use.
3.8 To what extent can enforcement of a trade mark expose the trade mark holder to liability for an antitrust violation?
Antitrust issues are rarely raised in the trade mark area. Under the FTC Guidelines, acts by an exclusive trade mark licensee which interrupt parallel imports (eg, requesting a foreign trade mark owner to not supply its products to the parallel importer, applying discriminatory sales conditions to distributors dealing with parallel imported products, etc) may constitute unfair trade activities, since parallel importation is generally permitted in Korea.
3.9 Can a court only partially invalidate a trade mark?
Regular courts do not have the power to invalidate a trade mark. Partial invalidation (ie, only in connection with certain designated goods) is possible through a trade mark invalidation action filed with the IPT.
3.10 Is it possible to amend a registered trade mark during a lawsuit?
A registered trade mark cannot be amended after registration, including during a lawsuit. However, the registrant may cancel certain designated goods after registration.
3.11 Are there any grounds on which an otherwise valid trade mark can be deemed unenforceable, owing to misconduct by the trade mark holder, or for some other reason (eg expiry of time limit)?
Even if a trade mark is registered, it can be found unenforceable. For example, a court may refuse to enforce a trade mark if it finds that the trade mark owner obtained the trade mark in bad faith to free ride on another party’s well-known mark and to abuse its trade mark rights for unjust profits.
3.12 Can a trade mark holder bring a lawsuit claiming both trade mark infringement and unfair competition for the same set of facts? Is it possible to bring parallel unfair competition proceedings, whether or not the trade mark is registered?
Both trade mark infringement and unfair competition may be claimed in a single lawsuit based on the same set of facts. If the trade mark is not registered, a trade mark infringement claim would not be possible (and any potential remedies would be limited to an unfair competition claim).
4. Parties to Litigation
4.1 Who can sue for trade mark infringement (trade mark holder, exclusive licensee, non-exclusive licensee, distributor)? Does a licensee need to be registered to sue?
Only the trade mark holder and its exclusive licensee (recorded with KIPO) can sue for trade mark infringement.
4.2 Under what conditions, if any, can an alleged infringer bring a lawsuit to obtain a declaratory judgment on non-infringement?
If the trade mark owner obtained its trade mark in bad faith to free ride on another party’s well-known mark and to abuse its trade mark rights for unjust profits, the owner of the well-known mark may file a lawsuit to receive a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
4.3 Who can be sued for trade mark infringement? Can the company directors be sued personally? Under what conditions, if any, can someone be sued for inducing or contributing to trade mark infringement by someone else?
Any individual or legal entity engaged in the sale or delivery of products bearing a mark identical or similar to a registered trade mark, or displaying, exporting or importing such products for the purpose of selling or delivering, can be sued for trade mark infringement.
Company directors can be sued personally in cases where they have played key roles in the company’s trade mark infringement. For example, a representative director may be liable if he or she personally directed the company to conduct the trade mark infringing activities.
An individual may be sued for inducing or contributing to trade mark infringement in the following cases: (i) acts of delivering, selling, counterfeiting, imitating or possessing ‘trade marks’ (referring to labels, tags, etc) identical or similar to a registered trade mark for the purposes of using or causing a third party to use such ‘trade marks’ on goods identical or similar to the designated goods; (ii) acts of manufacturing, delivering, selling or possessing equipment for the purposes of counterfeiting or imitating a registered trade mark or causing a third party to counterfeit or imitate such trade mark; or (iii) acts of possessing goods (for assignment or delivery) which are identical or similar to the designated goods bearing a trade mark identical or similar to a registered trade mark.
4.4 Is it possible to add or subtract parties during litigation?
Adding or subtracting parties is allowed during litigation, if the underlying legal right is transferred to another party. It is also possible to add a party if a necessary party had not initially joined the litigation. Further, if the plaintiff named the incorrect defendant, the defendant may be changed upon the court’s approval, subject to the consent of any defendant which has already filed a response. Additionally, a third party (with legal standing) may intervene in a pending litigation on behalf of a litigant.
5. Enforcement Options
5.1 What options are open to a trade mark holder when seeking to enforce its rights in your country?
Both civil and criminal proceedings are available. An infringement action may be initiated at a District Court, and the plaintiff (trade mark owner) prevailing in this action may obtain injunctive relief and/or monetary compensation. As for injunctive relief, there are two available proceedings: a preliminary injunction action and permanent injunction action. In a preliminary injunction action, monetary compensation may not be sought. Additionally, border measures are also available.
5.2 Are criminal proceedings available? If so, what are the sanctions?
Yes. The criminal penalties for trade mark infringement are: (i) imprisonment up to seven years; or (ii) monetary fine up to 100 million Korean Won (approximately US$110,000 at exchange rates effective as of June 2007). In cases where the directors or employees of a company engage in trade mark infringement, the company may also be subject to a fine of up to 100 million Korean Won.
5.3 Are border measures available?
Yes. If the customs office recognises imported goods that infringe trade mark rights (recorded with the customs office), it provides notice to the trade mark owner regarding the import, and can then suspend the import at the trade mark owner’s request and deposit of the required collateral. The initial suspension period is ten days (which may be extended for an additional ten days in exceptional cases), which is continued if the trade mark owner files a trade mark infringement action against the importer within the initial suspension period.
Additionally, trade mark owners may file a Korean Trade Committee (‘KTC’) action to obtain permanent or preliminary injunctive relief against the export/import of infringing products. Further, the KTC may also issue injunctive orders to prevent the manufacture or sales of infringing products (and/or their destruction).
5.4 To what extent are courts willing to grant cross-border or extra-territorial injunctions?
To date, there has been no reported court decision granting cross-border or extra-territorial injunctions. Further, the majority of legal commentary states that Korean courts cannot issue cross-border or extra-territorial injunctive relief, due to the territorial nature of trade mark rights and/or principles of international comity.
5.5 To what extent do courts recognise the blocking effect of ‘torpedo’ actions abroad?
Although there is no reported precedent on point, most commentators take the position that a Korean court may stay its proceeding if a prior-initiated foreign legal proceeding dealing with the same issues would likely satisfy the Korean Civil Procedure Code (‘KCPC’) requirements for Korean courts to recognise and enforce foreign judgments.
5.6 To what extent are alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods (such as arbitration or mediation) available to resolve trade mark disputes? How widespread are ADR methods and in which sectors? If arbitration is available to assess invalidity, will your Trade Mark Office recognise and execute an arbitral award declaring a trade mark invalid?
ADR methods are not available to determine the validity of trade mark rights, since the Korean Intellectual Property Office (‘KIPO’) has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over trade mark validity. However, a private settlement or ADR decision may lead to the withdrawal of such actions.
6. Procedure in Civil Courts
6.1 What is the format of trade mark infringement proceedings?
The proceedings commence with the filing of a complaint, followed by the exchange of two or three briefs before the court sets a preparatory hearing. At the preparatory hearing (typically held once or twice), the disputed legal issues and potential evidentiary procedures (eg witness testimony) are discussed. The court then generally holds two to four hearings where the parties make oral arguments, submit briefs and/or evidence, and conduct fact finding (eg witness testimony or document production). The court then usually sets a date to announce its decision three to four weeks after the hearing proceeding is closed.
6.2 Are disputed issues decided by a judge or a jury?
The court (composed of three judges) decides the disputed issues.
6.3 To what extent are documents, affidavits, witnesses and/or (court-appointed or private) experts used? Is it possible to cross-examine witnesses?
Documents, affidavits, and witnesses are commonly used to prove infringement, damages, defence arguments etc. Experts, whether court-appointed or private, are not often used in trade mark infringement cases (with the possible exception of damages calculation issues). Witnesses can be cross-examined.
6.4 To what extent is survey evidence used (eg to support acquired distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion)? What is its relevance in proceedings (eg party allegation, evidence)? Who decides which consumers are questioned in the survey (eg the court, court expert)? What level of cost should one expect to incur to carry out a survey? Are these costs recoverable from the losing party?
Survey evidence is admissible to establish likelihood of confusion and acquired distinctiveness. Generally, the survey should be privately conducted, but the court will ultimately assess whether the methodology was proper. Survey costs range from US$20 to US$40 per survey respondent. Court-ordered surveys are not common, and the associated costs may be recoverable (unlike those for private surveys).
6.5 Is evidence obtained for criminal proceedings admissible in civil proceedings, and vice versa?
Such evidence is generally admissible, but evidence containing private or confidential information may not be used.
6.6 To what extent is pre-trial discovery permitted? If it is permitted, how is discovery conducted? If it is not permitted, what other, if any, mechanisms are available for obtaining evidence from an adverse party or from third parties?
Although there is no formal ‘pre-trial’ discovery, ‘evidence preservation proceedings’ (before or after the complaint filing) are available to obtain evidence (eg, documents, testimony etc) when the destruction of relevant evidence is highly likely. Further, a litigant may petition the court to order other litigants or third parties to produce relevant documents. If such a document production order is issued, the ordered party may not refuse production if: (i) it has itself cited the document during the litigation; (ii) the petitioner has a legal basis to demand delivery or inspection of the document; or (iii) the document was prepared for the petitioner’s benefit or concerns legal rights and/or obligations between the petitioner and ordered party. However, production may be argued against by citing trade secrets or attorney-client privilege.
6.7 What level of proof is required for establishing infringement or invalidity?
Preponderance of the evidence.
6.8 How long do trade mark infringement proceedings typically last? Is it possible to expedite this process?
Six to 12 months are generally required for a first instance (District Court) decision. On appeal, four to eight months are required for a High Court decision (first appeal level), and one to two years for the Supreme Court decision (final appeal level). No formal mechanism exists to expedite the above proceedings.
6.9 What options, if any, are available to a defendant seeking to delay the proceedings? Under what conditions, if any, can proceedings be stayed? How can a plaintiff counter delaying tactics of defendant?
When a defendant files an invalidation or cancellation action against the asserted trade mark, the court has the option of staying the infringement proceedings (eg until a first instance decision is issued in the invalidation or cancellation proceedings). However, the plaintiff may request the court to proceed with the infringement action, eg by arguing that it is sustaining irreparable harm absent quick injunctive relief.
7. Final Remedies
7.1 What remedies are available against a trade mark infringer (final injunction, delivery up or destruction of infringing goods, publication of the decision, recall-order, monetary remedies, etc)?
The Korean Trade Mark Act provides the following civil remedies: injunctive relief, destruction of infringing goods and equipment used for infringing activities, any measure to prevent future infringement, and monetary relief.
7.2 To the extent it is possible to obtain a final injunction against future infringement, is it effective against the infringer’s suppliers or customers?
An injunctive order against an infringer does not extend to suppliers or customers, but bars the infringer’s purchase (from suppliers) or sales (to customers) of the infringing products.
7.3 What monetary remedies are available against a trade mark infringer (reasonable royalty, lost profits, account of profits, or some other basis)? Are punitive damages available? If so, under what conditions?
Actual damages, lost profits, and reasonable royalties (but no punitive damages) are available. By statute, damages may be calculated by multiplying the infringing sales by the trade mark owner’s profit per unit (in the absence of infringement). However, such damages are limited by the difference between: (i) the trade mark owner’s maximum sales in view of its production capacity etc; and (ii) the plaintiff’s actual sales. Further, the plaintiff’s reduced sales for reasons other than infringement must also be excluded from the damages calculation. Another statutory formula for damages is the infringer’s profits obtained as the result of infringement. The third statutory measure of damages is the plaintiff’s reasonable royalties which could have been obtained from the infringing sales.
8. Preliminary Relief
8.1 Is preliminary relief available? If so, what preliminary measures are available (eg preliminary injunction) and under what conditions?
Yes. Preliminary injunction and preliminary attachment are available as forms of preliminary relief. A preliminary injunction order is issued where the petitioner can establish: (i) likelihood of success on the merits; and (ii) irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Preliminary attachment is available to secure the infringer’s assets for the satisfaction of a later damages award (through a main action). To obtain a preliminary attachment order, the petitioner must establish: (i) likelihood of success on the merits of its damages claim; and (ii) hardship of later enforcing the damages award.
8.2 Is ex parte relief available, where defendant is given no notice at all? If so, under what conditions?
Preliminary injunction orders are not available ex parte. However, preliminary attachment orders may be issued ex parte.
8.3 Is plaintiff entitled to ask for an order that defendant’s premises are searched and a description of the infringing goods (and the accounting relating thereto) is made in order to establish proof of infringement (saisie-contrefaçon)? If not, what other mechanisms, if any, are available for seizing and preserving evidence for trial?
As noted above, even before filing an action, a potential plaintiff may request evidence preservation proceedings where the destruction of evidence is highly likely (including court inspection of the defendant’s premises and witness testimony). In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor may conduct a search and seizure of an alleged infringer’s premises under a court-issued warrant.
8.4 Can the defendant put the validity of a trade mark at issue in preliminary injunction proceedings?
Yes. Trade mark invalidity may be cited as a defence against an infringement claim.
8.5 What is the format of preliminary injunction proceedings?
Typically, two or three hearings are held after the complaint filing. The parties may submit briefs and evidence at each hearing, with the court’s decision being issued two to four weeks after the hearing proceedings are closed.
8.6 To what extent are documents, affidavits, witnesses, survey evidence, and/or (court-appointed or private) experts used in preliminary injunction proceedings?
Documents, affidavits, and survey evidence are commonly used in preliminary injunction proceedings, but witness testimony and/or court inspection are not generally allowed in view of the expedited nature of the proceedings.
8.7 What level of proof is required for establishing infringement or invalidity in preliminary injunction proceedings?
In principle, prima facie evidence is sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction order. In practice, however, the same level of proof as in a main action – preponderance of the evidence – is applied.
8.8 How long do preliminary injunction proceedings typically last?
Generally two to five months.
8.9 Where a preliminary injunction is granted, is it necessary to start main proceedings to confirm the preliminary injunction?
Main proceedings are not necessary to confirm a preliminary injunction order, but the preliminary injunction decision may be opposed or appealed by the respondent. Further, the respondent also has the right to demand that the petitioner file a main action to resolve the merits of the case.
9. Appeal Procedure
9.1 What avenues of appeal are available for a defeated party in main proceedings or preliminary injunction proceedings? Under what conditions?
In main actions, the losing party can appeal first to the High Court, then the Supreme Court. Both factual and legal issues may be disputed on appeal to the High Court, while only legal issues may be disputed before the Supreme Court. The same appeal levels apply for preliminary injunction proceedings, except that the defendant has an additional level of appeal to the same District Court panel (before the above appeal stages).
9.2 How long do appeal proceedings typically last?
Four to eight months are generally required for a High Court decision (first appeal level), and one to two years for the Supreme Court decision (final appeal level).
10. Litigation Costs
10.1 What level of cost should one expect to incur to take a case through to a first instance decision, preliminary injunction proceedings and/or appeal proceedings?
Costs vary depending on factors such as the complexity of issues, amount of evidence, the defendant’s strategy, etc. A very general estimate range is from tens of thousands of US$ to about US$100,000.
10.2 Are costs recoverable from the losing party?
Yes, but under a de minimis schedule designated by the Korean Supreme Court (generally less than US$5,000 for a first instance District Court decision).
11. Forthcoming legislation
11.1 What are the important developing and emerging trends in your country’s trade mark law?
A constant trend in the Korean trade mark field has been increased protection for well-known marks. Although the current law allows for such protection, the standard of proof required to establish the well-known status of a mark was extremely high. In view of the above, the TMA was recently amended to lower said standard. Another trend is the registrability of non-traditional marks, eg marks in motion, hologram marks, and colour marks, as long as such marks can be visually recognised. Further, KIPO is also planning to allow the registration of sound marks and olfactory marks in the near future.
11.2 To the extent it relates to trade mark enforcement, please outline any major trade mark legislation in the pipeline.
There is no major trade mark enforcement-related legislation planned at this time.
12. Useful references
12.1 Please identify any useful works of reference relating to trade mark law and trade mark litigation in your country, including useful websites.
Intellectual Property Rights, 9th Edition (Song Young-Shik, Lee Sang-Jung, Hwang Jong-Hwan, Yuk Phub Sa, 2005)
Intellectual Property Right Litigation (Lee Sang-Kyung, Yuk Phub Sa, 1998)
Trade Mark Act (Moon Sam-Sub, Sechang Publishing Co., 2002)
KIPO website (www.kipo.go.kr)
Supreme Court website (www.scourt.go.kr)
Patent Court website (patent.scourt.go.kr)
Ministry of Government Legislation website (www.moleg.go.kr)
.jpg)