Continuing from Korean Case Law on Trademark Dilution (2),
Point 1. The meaning of ‘widely known in Korea’ is different depending on under which provision the phrase is used, Art. 2(1)(a) (well known mark for goods), Art. 2(1)(b) (well known service mark), or Art. 2(1)(c) (trademark dilution).
Point 2. The level of standard for being ‘widely known in Korea’ for purposes of trademark dilution is quite high because a mark should be beyond being well known to reach the level of being eminent. Establishing a prima facie case for trademark dilution in Korea doesn’t seem easy. We still don’t know how famous is eminent. At least we know that Viagra was eminent in Korea in 2001.
Point 3. dram_man commented:
Hope you will continue, its really half the story. Again, in my experience we are talking very conservative rulings. For example when the court means “eminent” as you translate, in my experience they might as well write, if you can excuse the hyperbole, “slightly more famous than Coca-cola”. I will say however, the Court is slightly less strict than the Korean Intellectual Property Office in determining what is “well known”. Not enough to risk your business on in my opinion, but worth noting.
- Viagra was found ’eminent.’ I don’t know if Viagra is more famous than Coca-cola.
- I believe in dram_man, but I need more clarification on what dram_man meant by the Korean Intellectual Property Office’s (KIPO’s) determination of “well known.” The KIPO does not get to determine on what is well known under the Unfair Competition Act. It does have quasi-legislative power on the Unfair Competition Act but it does not have the power to interpret the Act. The only literature on the Unfair Competition Act published by KIPO that I could obtain was a 400 page manual on the Act.
As far as “damage”, I personally would add that the mere “possibility” of confusion is not enough. If you wanted to pursue dilution in court by using this provision, particularly solely by this provision, I would not be hopeful with evidence of bad-faith on the part of the dilutor, or evidence that consumers have indeed been confused by the usage.
- Court reports don’t explain in detail how it has reached a certain factual finding. The legal standard for proving “damaging the distinctiveness” isn’t clear.