1. 15 Foreign Law Firms to Advance into Korea

 

The Korean Ministry of Justice announced on the 20^th that it approved establishment of two foreign law firms in this country. Herbert Smith Freehills of the U. K. and Greenberg Traurig of the U. S. have applied for doing foreign law consulting business in this country.

 

Thus, the number of foreign law firms doing foreign law consulting business in this country now totals 15, including 12 American and 3 British firms as a result of the first round opening of the law market.

 

When the second round opening of the law market starts in the coming July (based on Korea-EU FTA; March 2014 based on Korea-America FTA), foreign law firms will be able to work with with domestic corporations to deal with aspects of domestic law affairs. With the third round opening of the law market in July 2016 (March 2017 for Korea-America FTA), foreign law firms will be able employ domestic lawyers to deal with domestic litigation, so de facto complete opening will be made.

 

 

2. EU Integrated Patent Court to be established -- Patent Cost to Decrease Much

 

The European Parliament approved the establishment of an integrated patent court in December last year. As the cabinet members of the 24 member countries among 27 EU countries signed a protocol for the establishment of an integrated patent court in Brussels, Belgium on the 19^th, the EU integrated patent court was formally launched. Thus, it is expected that patent application costs would decrease by more than 80% in Europe.

 

According to the integrated patent court establishment plan, Paris, France retained the court headquarters, and London, U. K. will be in charge of fields such as bioscience, chemistry and agriculture, and Munich, Germany fields such as engineering and resources. Italy and Spain refused to participate in the integrated patent court due to concerns about language problems.

 

 

3. “Ramshackle half-price drug pricing system promotes secret deals by generic corporations”

 

An argument has been brought up that the weak points of the half-price drug pricing system introduced last year could promote “black market secret deals” (reverse payment agreements) between patent drug holding multinational pharmaceutical companies and domestic generic drug developing companies.

 

Patent attorney Nam said at a rebate refund preliminary civil action press conference held at the Seoul Press Center: “The reverse payment agreement is a price paid by the patent drug company to the generic drug company for delaying the marketing of generic drugs, so it is also known as “pay-for-delay”.

 

He pointed out that under the current drug pricing system the price is not marked down unless the generic drug is registered even if the duration of the patent right has expired, and the “half-price drug pricing” is not applied unless the number of suppliers is four or more.

 

That is, even if the patent right has expired, the price of a generic drug is not marked down to half price unless it is actually registered.

 

 

4. “Do not imitate the New Balance trademark,” ordering compensation to a company using a similar trademark

 

Civil Collegiate Division 11 part of the Seoul Central District Court said “the emblem ‘N’ attached to the sneakers of a domestic firm (Company S) has some similarity but the overall appearance is different from the emblem ‘N’ of New Balance (an American company U) in shape and name,” explaining, “the domestic companies have not infringed the registered trademark right of New Balance.” However, the court ruled: “the emblem ‘N’ that New Balance and domestic companies are using could confuse the consumers because of the similarity of the emblem ‘N’, and this is a violation of the unfair competition prevention law, so domestic companies are prohibited to make and sell them and are obliged by law to remove the emblem ‘N’,” and prohibited to manufacture and sell domestic sneakers as well as ordered to pay over 120 million won.

 

 

5. Euijeongbu Budaichigae Lane ‘Odaeng Restaurants’ dispute over the origin – The Restaurant that used the shop name wins against the restaurant that used the trademark

 

In the dispute over the name “Odaeng Restaurant” in Budaichigae lane, which is a local specialty in the Euijeongbu area of Gyeonggi-do, the Civil Collegiate Division 30 part of the Euijeongbu District Court ruled in favor of Restaurant A, which is the first to use the company name, and against Restaurant B, which is the first to file the application for the registration of service mark. Saying, “Restaurant B seems to have registered the service mark to gain profits by confusing consumers,” the Court ruled, “Although they are the service mark right holder, they have misused or abused the trademark law, so it cannot be deemed to be a lawful exercise of right.” The application for injunction filed by Restaurant B was dismissed. Restaurant B filed application for registration of service mark for ‘000 Original Odaeng Euijeongbu Budaechigae’ in 2008, and using it as the name of their restaurant, they filed an application for injunction against Restaurant A.

 

 

6. A puppy-shaped necklace; in the trademark right lawsuit in this country between Agatha Diffusion and Swarovski, the latter makes a final win

 

The Supreme Court Section 3 (Chief judge: justice Kim Shin) announced on the 5^th that in the trademark infringement suspension lawsuit filed against Swarovski Korea by Agatha Diffusion Company of France the original decision against the plaintiff was confirmed at the trial on an appeal. The Court clarified: “The puppy-shaped trademark of Agatha Diffusion and the puppy-shaped pendant of Swarovski have an aspect of similarity, but the plaintiff’s trademark is a two-dimensional plane and the defendant’s pendant is a three-dimensional structure cut in crystal.” And the Court ruled: “Since there are detailed differences in the position and shape of the puppy feet, whether or not there is a dog collar, tail, forehead, and buttocks, they are not deemed to be similar.”