World Intellectual Property - IP Laws - South Korea
IP-Administrative actions review:
The Intellectual Property Tribunal (IPT) reviews some administrative actions in order to systemetically to expedite the handling of these actions. In this respect, the IPT has adopted the following intensive review procedures:
1. Within 15 days of the filing date, the IPT will complete its review of the formalities of a petition and will forward its first notices to the parties of its decision within one month requiring the respondent to submit its response within 30 days of receiving the written notice.
2. Within two months of the filing date, the IPT will review whether the petitioner has proper standing or whether the subject product or process is clearly defined. If any of the above are found to be insufficient, the IPT will request that the petition be amended.
3. Within three months of the filing date, the IPT will determine whether additional proceedings (including oral hearings) are necessary and conduct such proceedings. In principle, the IPT plans to issue a final decision within six months of the filing date.
By adopting the above intensive procedures, the IPT aims to prevent international delays as a defensive tactic and to strengthen its administrative review. The IPT has also expanded the scope of cases to be expedited to all administrative actions related to a pending infringement action to qualify for expedited proceedings. This is in contrast to the previous practice of the IPT allowing expedited proceedings only after a petition had been filed by a party. Further, all confirmation actions will now also be automatically reviewed on an expedited basis as long as the product or process at issue is alleged to be used commercially.
Another review relates to translation of priority documents which will not be required unless requested to do so by an examiner at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) or IPT. This new rule will only apply to applications where the deadline for submitting a Korean translation of priority documents expires. This change will benefit forein applicants.
Bad faith and IPT decision:
Theoretically, under the Korean Trade Mark Act (TMA), an application for a mark identical or similar to a famous mark field in bad faith should be invalidated, even if its goods have no similarity with the goods that are not related to those of a famous mark. Thus the Patent Court decision of October 2005, the defendant's application for Pepero mark designating stationery goods against plaintiff's application mark Pepero used on confectionary goods was considered invalidated because Pepero is a chocolate-dipped cookie stick which is famous in Korea and can be used for confectionary-related goods. As such the mark was declared to be an imitation despite the differences between the goods of the applied mark and the famous mark.
Trade secret misappropriation:
On December 22, 2005, the Seoul Central District Court judge convicted Mr. Oh, an employee of OK-diaplus Corporation and others of trade secret misappropriation. Gist of the decision is that after Oh resigned from the OK Corporation, he established a selling agency for an Irish competitor to OK and drew away from OK business secres such as client information, product costs and delivery connections with the help of an ex co-worker. Their actions caused considerable loss to OK. The Court deemed the trade secret misappropriation to be serious because Oh and his party betrayed their former employer's confidence and gained from the misappropriation.
For any
queries relating to our services and costs, please feel free to
contact us at info@iprfirm.com.
IPR
FIRM.COM - Online IPR Law Firm, India – Trade Marks, Copyright Registration,
Delhi, India
| | |
(c) IPR Firm, 2007.
|
