# Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후10504 separates an intention to launch from actual use and objective obstacles beyond the owner’s control. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후10504 separates an intention to launch from actual use and objective obstacles beyond the owner’s control. Trademarks 2026.09.30 published IPLEX 7 min read A cosmetics registration left unused On 12 March 2026, the Korean Supreme Court considered non-use cancellation of a cosmetics mark registered on 26 August 2019. The owner had used an earlier mark for accessories since 2014 and challenged the opposing party’s cosmetics registrations on 8 October 2019. Those registrations were eventually invalidated with finality on 27 July 2023. Before then, on 29 August 2022, the opposing party had sought non-use cancellation of the owner’s mark for 16 designated cosmetics goods. Packaging commissions, business registration, OEM and distribution discussions and training were relied on as launch preparations. Use and proper reasons for non-use Under the Korean statutory framework addressed by the court, continuous non-use in Korea for at least three years before the cancellation request may expose a registration to cancellation. The respondent must establish qualifying use within the relevant period for at least one of the challenged goods or a proper reason for non-use. An intention to use when filing and a justification for later non-use are separate questions. Why litigation concerns were insufficient The Patent Court had accepted a proper reason, taking account of infringement risk, possible criminal liability, uncertainty over the opposing marks’ validity and launch preparations. The Supreme Court required proof of a continuing objective, external obstacle beyond the control of the person entitled to use the mark. Force majeure, regulatory restrictions, sales prohibitions or import restrictions may qualify. Commercial difficulty or apprehension of litigation ordinarily reflects an internal business decision. The court accepted that the competing marks were phonetically similar; it did not dismiss the concern merely because no conflict existed. Invalidity proceedings were not a use prohibition Challenging the opposing registrations did not itself constitute use of the owner’s mark, establish a specific infringement finding or impose a legal duty to refrain from use. An infringement dispute could be adjudicated, with invalidity and abuse-of-right arguments assessed as appropriate. The record did not establish force majeure or legal restrictions preventing cosmetics trade. Launch preparations alone did not turn the period of non-use into one justified by an unavoidable external cause. The result and portfolio management The Supreme Court reversed and remanded; it did not declare that using the mark would carry no infringement risk. Businesses should manage dispute strategy and non-use exposure together, distinguish preparatory documents from evidence of actual trade mark use and record any genuine external obstacle and its duration. The judgment should not be read as an instruction to launch regardless of legal risk. The point is that concern, intention and preparation do not automatically preserve an unused registration. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Designs & trade marks ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE A cosmetics registration left unused Use and proper reasons for non-use Why litigation concerns were insufficient Invalidity proceedings were not a use prohibition The result and portfolio management TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Food-Container Designs: Giving Proper Weight to Features Already Known ↗ Older The Same Cleaning Function Does Not Necessarily Establish Patent Equivalence ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.01 TikTok for confectionery: dilution can prevent registration in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10379 explains why different goods and later commercial success did not overcome the reputation and distinctiveness of TikTok. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.29 An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? The 010PAY decision, 2025허10405, considers actual transactions, revenue and the proper subject of Korean trade mark scope proceedings. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.28 Model Numbers on Compatible Refills: When Is a Sign Used as a Trade Mark? Korean Patent Court decision 2025허10434 examines the role of ‘250 SERIES’ in its packaging and market context. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/trademark#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776#case-1776-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776#case-1776-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776#case-1776-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776#case-1776-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776#case-1776-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1775 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769