{"id":3540,"date":"2025-12-04T12:13:46","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T03:13:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sarangip.com\/en\/?p=3540"},"modified":"2026-07-22T12:47:18","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T03:47:18","slug":"success-stories-trademark-invalidation-bad-faith-squatting-korea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sarangip.com\/en\/success-stories-trademark-invalidation-bad-faith-squatting-korea\/","title":{"rendered":"[Success Stories] Brand Hijackers Defeated: Reclaiming Stolen Trademarks in Korea (3 Case Studies)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Shock of “Brand Squatting”<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Imagine building a brand for years, pouring your soul into its reputation, only to find that someone else has already registered your name in Korea. This practice, known as “Trademark Squatting,”<\/strong> is a major hurdle for businesses expanding into the Korean market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, a squatter’s registration is not invincible. If a trademark is filed in “bad faith” to piggyback on a well-known brand, it can be cancelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sarang IP has a strong track record of correcting these injustices. Here are three distinct cases where we successfully used the “Trademark Invalidation Trial”<\/strong> to strip squatters of their rights and return them to the true owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Case 1: The Domestic Fashion Leader<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Situation:<\/strong> CEO Yoon ran a successful online clothing mall with a solid reputation in Korea. He discovered that a competitor (Person A) had registered a trademark nearly identical to his\u2014not just for clothing (Class 25) but also for online retail services (Class 35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Strategy: Proving “Bad Faith”<\/strong> To invalidate the squatter’s mark, we had to prove two things: the fame of CEO Yoon’s brand and the malicious intent of Person A.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  • Evidence of Fame:<\/strong> We compiled massive amounts of data: years of operation, sales figures, and media coverage to prove the brand was “well-known” among Korean consumers.<\/li>
  • Evidence of Intent:<\/strong> We demonstrated that Person A was aware of CEO Yoon\u2019s business and filed the mark specifically to cause consumer confusion. We also pointed out that A registered the mark but never actually used it\u2014a classic sign of squatting.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
    • \"Side-by-side
      Side-by-side comparison of CEO Yoon’s fashion brand mark and Person A’s near-identical squatted trademark<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
    • \"KIPRIS
      KIPRIS registration record of the bad-faith fashion trademark filed in clothing Class 25<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
    • \"Evidence
      Evidence of the fashion brand’s fame among Korean consumers submitted to the tribunal<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
    • \"Trademark
      Trademark record showing the squatted mark also covering online retail services in Class 35<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
    • \"Korea
      Korea IP Trial and Appeal Board invalidation trial decision in the fashion brand case<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
    • \"Tribunal
      Tribunal ruling declaring the squatter’s fashion trademark registration invalid<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      The Result:<\/strong> The tribunal ruled the registration Invalid<\/strong>. CEO Yoon successfully reclaimed his brand rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/div>\n\n\n\n
      \n\n\n\n

      Case 2: The Global Tech Giant & Domain Recovery<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The Situation:<\/strong> Company B, a world-renowned Chinese search engine portal (often called the “Google of China”), found that a Korean individual had registered their brand name under the category of “Advertising Services.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Strategy: Connecting the Dots<\/strong> The squatter argued that “Search Services” and “Advertising” were different industries. We argued otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      • Global Fame:<\/strong> We submitted evidence of Company B\u2019s NASDAQ listing and global rankings to establish “World-Renowned Status.”<\/li>
      • The Business Logic:<\/strong> We argued that for a search engine, advertising is the primary revenue model. Therefore, the services are closely related (connected).<\/li>
      • Bad Faith:<\/strong> We cited precedents showing that squatting on a famous foreign mark for unfair profits is grounds for invalidation.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
        • \"Comparison
          Comparison of the Chinese search portal’s brand and the Korean squatter’s advertising-services mark<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
        • \"Evidence
          Evidence of the search giant’s NASDAQ listing and global rankings establishing world-renowned status<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
        • \"KIPRIS
          KIPRIS record of the squatted trademark registered under advertising services<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
        • \"Korea
          Korea IP Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating the search portal trademark<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
        • \"Patent
          Patent Court judgment dismissing the squatter’s appeal in the trademark invalidation case<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
        • \"Internet
          Internet address dispute decision recovering the hijacked.kr and.co.kr domain names<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          The Result:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          1. Trademark:<\/strong> We won the invalidation trial. The squatter appealed to the Patent Court, but we won there as well (Appeal Dismissed).<\/li>
          2. Domain Names:<\/strong> The squatter had also hoarded B.kr<\/code> and B.co.kr<\/code>. Through a parallel Internet Address Dispute Resolution process, we successfully recovered these domain names for Company B.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n\n
            <\/div>\n\n\n\n
            \n\n\n\n

            Case 3: The Cross-Border Franchise<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            The Situation:<\/strong> CEO Ring founded a famous Lamb Skewer franchise in Yanbian, China, and successfully opened a branch in Korea. However, a third party (Person C) copied the brand and filed a trademark first, blocking CEO Ring\u2019s expansion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The Strategy: “Specific Consumer” Awareness<\/strong> The squatter claimed the brand wasn’t famous enough among the general<\/em> Korean public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            • Targeted Fame:<\/strong> We argued that a brand doesn’t need to be known by everyone<\/em>. It only needs to be known by specific consumers<\/em> (in this case, Chinese expatriates and Korean locals who enjoy authentic Chinese cuisine).<\/li>
            • Free-Riding:<\/strong> We proved Person C was attempting to “free-ride” on the established reputation of CEO Ring\u2019s franchise to make unfair profits.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
              • \"Comparison
                Comparison of CEO Ring’s lamb skewer franchise brand and Person C’s copied trademark<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
              • \"Evidence
                Evidence of the franchise’s reputation among Chinese expatriate and local consumers<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
              • \"IP
                IP Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating the copied lamb skewer franchise mark<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

                The Result:<\/strong> The tribunal agreed that the squatter had “bad faith intentions.” The imitation trademark was Invalidated<\/strong>, and CEO Ring is now successfully expanding his franchise across Korea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/div>\n\n\n\n
                \n\n\n\n

                Conclusion: Evidence is Key<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                The common thread in all three cases? Evidence.<\/strong> Whether it is sales data, global rankings, or proof of bad intent, the success of an invalidation trial depends on how meticulously the evidence is prepared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Trademark rights are the foundation of your business. If your brand has been stolen in Korea, do not accept it as a lost cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Sarang IP specializes in reclaiming what belongs to you.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                Has a squatter registered your brand in Korea? Read 3 success stories where Sarang IP invalidated bad-faith trademarks and reclaimed rights for rightful owners.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3891,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[127],"tags":[161,163,164,162,160],"class_list":["post-3540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-success-stories","tag-bad-faith-trademark-filing","tag-brand-protection-korea","tag-domain-name-dispute-korea","tag-kipo-trademark-dispute","tag-trademark-squatting-korea","category-127","description-off"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t