One of the first lines of defence in preventing the spread of counterfeit and imitation goods is to stop such goods from entering a country at the borders. Accordingly, IP rights owners should always consider using customs' services as a part of their enforcement programmes in South Korea. In particular, IP rights owners should actively assist Customs in seizure cases and conduct training sessions for customs officers to educate them about their brands.
Substantial efforts are being made by the South Korean government to turn the country into a regional Asian IP hub. The most recent effort involves creating the International IP Hub Court – a specialised court panel within the Patent Court which will decide patent-related appeals in English. To further encourage foreign IP owners to use the Patent Court as a hub for international IP disputes, the government is considering fully implementing the International IP Hub Court.
Pfizer has successfully enforced its patent covering a secondary use of its Lyrica product against 13 generic drug manufacturers in South Korea, and was awarded approximately KRW2.2 billion in damages. The court held that the patent was valid and found infringement on the part of the generic manufacturers. This is the first decision in South Korea in which a court has awarded damages for infringement by generic drug manufacturers of a second medical use patent.
The Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) recently conducted another IP survey of approximately 70 pharmaceutical companies, seeking detailed information regarding their major products, patents and litigation disputes involving intellectual property in South Korea. While this survey is limited to pharmaceutical companies, the KFTC may decide to investigate and issue surveys in other industries in order to determine whether IP abuse is occurring in those areas as well.
The Seoul Central District Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against the sale of a banana-flavoured jelly product on the grounds of dilution, despite the fact that it did not infringe the plaintiff's registered trademarks for dairy products. The court found that the plaintiff's banana-flavoured milk product was a well-known source identifier. As such, the plaintiff had rights to its appearance even for non-milk products.