Can a brand owner sue a search engine because its trademark shows up in search results? On September 22, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said no, affirming the dismissal of a trademark suit against Google. The reasoning behind that decision maps closely onto how Korean courts have drawn the line on trademark use online, and it offers practical lessons for anyone protecting a brand in Korea.
The U.S. case: Benedict v. Google
Musician Lance M. Benedict had registered his name as a trademark for entertainment, marketing, and management services. When disparaging third-party posts about him kept appearing in Google’s organic search results, he sued Google for trademark infringement, also pointing to Google’s AdWords advertising program.
The District of Arizona (No. CV-23-02392-PHX-JJT) dismissed the complaint with prejudice in 2024, holding that Benedict failed to plead “use in commerce” as required by the Lanham Act. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a memorandum disposition (No. 24-6966). Citing its 2005 decision in Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, the panel reiterated that trademark law does not prohibit all unauthorized uses of a mark: the use must be connected with a commercial transaction. Merely displaying third-party content in search results does not establish that nexus.
The court also distinguished Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009), where Google allegedly sold a trademark as an advertising keyword to the owner’s competitor. Benedict’s complaint contained only “scattered and disconnected references” to AdWords, and a new infringement theory could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
How Korean courts draw the same line
Korean trademark law reaches a similar result through the doctrine of “trademark use” (sangpyojeok sayong). Article 2(1)(xi)(c) of the Korean Trademark Act defines use to include displaying a mark in advertisements and other media, but Korean courts consistently ask whether the sign actually functions as an indication of source in the marketplace. The case law splits into two clear groups.
Where use was denied
| Context | Facts | Key point | Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain name | Operating a website at viagra.co.kr while the products sold on the site bore a different mark | A domain name that merely draws visitors to a site is not, by itself, an indication of source; the court looks at the site as a whole | Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2002Da13782 (May 14, 2004) |
| Social media handle | Using a name identical to a registered mark as an Instagram ID, e-mail, and blog address, with no commercial activity attached | Private, non-commercial use of an account name does not indicate the source of goods or services | Patent Court, Decision 2017Na1100 (July 21, 2017) |
Where use was found
| Context | Facts | Key point | Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain name | Providing a news service under the domain koreatimestoday.com | A domain name that itself identifies the source of a service constitutes service mark use | Patent Court, Decision 2017Na1407 (September 29, 2017) |
| Keyword advertising | Displaying a sign in sponsored-link search results on a portal | Conveying product information visually through a search results page is “advertising,” and therefore trademark use (the claim ultimately failed on dissimilarity of the marks) | Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2010Hu3073 (May 24, 2012) |
| Keyword advertising | Using a registered mark in Naver “Power Link” keyword ads | Trademark use and infringement found; statutory damages of KRW 30 million awarded | Patent Court, Decision 2024Na10768 (November 13, 2025) |
| YouTube channel name | Renaming a monetized channel to a sign similar to a registered mark | Use of the channel name itself was recognized as trademark use (the injunction was denied on dissimilarity of services) | Seoul Central District Court, Decision 2024Kahap20873 (October 4, 2024) |
| Influencer commerce | Promoting shoes under a third party’s mark across Instagram, blogs, YouTube, and live broadcasts, while the products carried a different label | Use in advertising functioned as an indication of source; a separate label on the product itself did not change the result | Patent Court, Decision 2022Na1494 (November 16, 2022) |
The dividing line is consistent on both sides of the Pacific: a mark that merely appears on a screen is not “used” in the trademark sense, but a mark deployed in a commercial context to tell consumers where goods or services come from is. Notably, Korean courts have been expanding the second category, from search ad screens to monetized channel names and even spoken references in live commerce broadcasts. Had Benedict sued in Korea, the outcome would likely have been the same: a search engine’s algorithmic display of third-party content sits firmly on the “no use” side of the line.
Takeaways for brand owners
First, distinguish exposure from use. Your mark appearing in search results or in someone’s private handle is generally not infringement. Second, competitor conduct is different: if a competitor buys your mark as an ad keyword, uses it in ad copy, or adopts it as a commercial account name in Korea, recent case law supports enforcement, so preserve dated screenshots. Third, if the real problem is defamatory content, pursue defamation remedies and takedown procedures under Korean internet law rather than stretching trademark claims. Finally, plead your theory precisely from the outset; in the U.S. as in Korea, a theory raised too late may never be heard.
If you are advising a client on online trademark enforcement in Korea, our team is happy to assess whether a specific use crosses the line.
This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific matters, please contact Sarang IP Law Firm.
