1. Brexit casts a cloud over the integration of European intellectual property rights

The KIPO announced the results of its own analysis on the intellectual property rights such as trademark, designs and patents anticipated due to the UK's decision to exit from the EU. The system in which EU trademarks and designs can be protected across Europe just by one application to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) would not be applied to the UK after Brexit procedures are completed. The Unitary Patent, which the EU has been promoting so as to be effective throughout the EU by a one-off application and registration, and the Unified Patent Court, which is stipulated to be set up in Paris, Munich and London, are to be set back inevitably due to the Brexit. Implementation of one-off application and registration of European trademarks and patents looks not possible unless the EU exit procedures are completed, so it cannot but be delayed.

2. Small, medium and venture businesses are under double/triple distress due to disputes over intellectual property rights

The KIPO announced on the 31^st that the fact-finding results of disputes over intellectual property rights in this country showed that of 370 disputes over intellectual property rights that occurred in the recent five years, 241 cases, which is 65.1%, are infringements upon the intellectual property rights of small, medium and venture businesses. Of businesses that were surveyed and have experienced disputes, small and medium businesses are 81, accounting for the largest portion (53.5%), followed by 34 venture businesses (22.4%), 26 mid-sized businesses (17.1%) and 11 big businesses (7.2%). The findings showed that the average losses due to infringement upon intellectual property rights are 446 million won for small and medium businesses and 149 million won for venture businesses. In contrast to this, the average losses for big businesses were no more than 6 million won. In addition, the ratio, in which a decrease in sales was regarded as the largest damage, reached 57.1% and 56.3% respectively for small/medium businesses and venture businesses, but no more than 5.3% for big businesses.

3. Korea and China will share information on trademark applications for cooperation to prevent 'malicious preoccupancy'

The KIPO held the fourth Korea-China trademark office chief level meeting on the 21^st in Beijing, China, between Commissioner Choi Dong-Gyou of KIPO and Ruejunchen, deputy director (deputy glass) of Chinese Industry, Business and Administration Management Office, and discussed ways to cooperate between two countries on main pending problems such as malicious preoccupancy of trademarks and counterfeit products. They discussed a scheme for building a cooperative system so as to basically prevent registration in the examination phase by sharing between the two countries the information on the trademark application filing in China of Korean Alphabet trademark, or any brand thatis well known as Korean wave contents, etc. but is suspected to be an imitation of a Korean trademark. Thereby, it is possible to search imitation trademarks easily and quickly, and notify the other country. It was also agreed to build a follow-up cooperative system whereby registration is prevented by sharing information during opposition to the grant of a trademark even if the imitation trademark was not screened in the examination phase.

4. Court rules trademark registration to be invalidated for the trademark 'Dokdo Chamchi (tuna) ...' that does not use Dokdo Chamchi

The Patent Court Section 4 (Chief Lee Jeong-Seok) announced on the 28^th that it decided in favor of the plaintiff, saying It is invalid to register a trademark as a designated service using a phrase 'a restaurant chain specializing in tuna (which suggests that it uses tuna caught in the seas surrounding Dokdo)' despite that Dokdo Chamchi is not used in practice. The Patent Court ruled, It cannot be deemed that a designated service is widely recognized as a restaurant specializing in tuna which uses tuna caught in the seas surrounding Dokdo due to the fact that Dokdo Chamchi is known (among the public) simply as a restaurant specializing in tuna. Accordingly, the 'Dokdo Chamchi' trademark is invalid since it belongs to a category prohibited in use of geography. 18 owners of the branches of 'Dokdo Chamchi,' a famous chain of restaurants specializing in tuna testified, in the lawsuit for the invalidation of trademark registration, that the tuna they have been using had nothing to do with tuna caught around Dokdo unlike the firm name suggests. 'Dokdo Chamchi,' an incorporated company, has over 200 franchises nationwide, making 100 billion won yearly.