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.

2026
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

Latest Updates

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

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

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