# DoctorsNow: regulatory relief and cancellation for non-use A Korean Patent Court decision examines objective barriers to trademark use, temporary telemedicine permission and the three-year assessment period. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1788 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS DoctorsNow: regulatory relief and cancellation for non-use A Korean Patent Court decision examines objective barriers to trademark use, temporary telemedicine permission and the three-year assessment period. Trademarks 2026.10.02 published IPLEX 6 min read The dispute and its timeline On 17 April 2025, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the proprietor’s challenge in case 2024Heo15431. DoctorsNow, registration No. 54614, was filed on 14 January 2014 and registered on 5 March 2015 for pharmaceutical goods and various services, including Class 44 telemedicine and teledentistry. The issue was non-use, rather than similarity to another mark. Which three years matter? The cancellation petition was filed on 28 November 2022. The relevant period therefore ran from 28 November 2019 through 27 November 2022. The tribunal ordered cancellation on 18 October 2024 in case 2022Dang3319. The proprietor principally defended non-use of the telemedicine and teledentistry services; non-use for the other challenged goods and services was not disputed. Objective impediments and business choices Legal prohibitions, sales restrictions or government import controls may justify non-use when the obstacle is not attributable to the proprietor. But a past prohibition does not settle the position throughout the entire assessment period. The court examined whether, and for how long, the designated services could actually have been offered. Why the telemedicine defence failed At least from 15 December 2020, temporary permission allowed non-face-to-face treatment during a severe COVID-19 alert where the doctor considered it safe. Evidence described around 20 telemedicine apps and expanding use. The proprietor’s explanations—being occupied with COVID-19 care and waiting for a complete regulatory framework—did not establish an objective inability to use the mark; preparations to launch the relevant services were also not shown. No automatic restart of the clock The court did not grant a fresh three-year grace period from regulatory relaxation. It assessed the whole look-back period, the duration of the obstacle and the substantial opportunity to use the mark after that obstacle changed. Equally, the judgment should not be read as making any brief easing of regulation sufficient for immediate cancellation. Practical handling of a non-use challenge Maintain separate records of actual trademark use and of objective impediments. Map each designated service against the applicable regulation and dates, then document what changed and how the business responded. Preparations may help explain the circumstances but are not automatically trademark use. In this case the proprietor’s court action failed and the cancellation decision stood; the judgment did not decide an infringement claim. Original figure labels and forms are preserved; the surrounding text explains their meaning. Read the related case commentary 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 The dispute and its timeline Which three years matter? Objective impediments and business choices Why the telemedicine defence failed No automatic restart of the clock Practical handling of a non-use challenge TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Combining earlier designs: why familiar elements did not establish easy creation ↗ Older Attention Residuals: How AI combines earlier layers, and what matters for patents ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.15 Non-use cancellation: a place name added to a restaurant trade mark Korean Patent Court case 2024Heo13916 addresses use of “Gobaksa Naengmyeon” with the prefix “Pyeongtaek” and the scope of the cancellation claim. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.10.15 Coupang trademark complaint: the analysis behind resumed sales A desktop ornament returned to sale two days after IPLEX was engaged. The response connected the product name, actual use and listing evidence under Korean trademark law. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.10.14 Bankruptcy does not automatically excuse trade mark non-use Korean Supreme Court case 2024Hu11460 examines justified non-use from the bankruptcy trustee’s position. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1788 - 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-1788#case-1788-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1788#case-1788-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1788#case-1788-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1788#case-1788-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1788#case-1788-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1788#case-1788-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1789 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/attention-residuals-ai-patent-analysis - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1832 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1832 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-trademark-sales-resumption-1834 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-trademark-sales-resumption-1834 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1829 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1829