# Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation The Korean Gompyo Guksu decision explains why approving artwork and requesting changes did not establish sufficient supervision of licensees. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1850 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation The Korean Gompyo Guksu decision explains why approving artwork and requesting changes did not establish sufficient supervision of licensees. Trademarks 2026.10.19 published IPLEX 9 min read The licensed mark and the challenged use The Korean Patent Court dismissed case 2026Heo10002 on 15 September 2026, leaving cancellation of registration No. 113134, Gompyo Guksu, intact. The mark combines a four-legged bear and wording for Class 30 foods including noodles and toast. Its owner licensed three marks to Daehan Flour Mills for two years from 28 February 2021; that agreement ended on 27 February 2023. Other licensing or OEM arrangements from late 2022 conferred express or implied non-exclusive rights. Their users sold pizza, burritos, toast, tortillas and dumplings under seven actual-use marks. Daehan obtained the cancellation decision on 27 November 2025. Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation — Figure 2 Two distinct comparisons Article 119(1)(2) addresses a licensee’s use causing quality deception or source confusion. First, the court compared actual use with the registered mark: despite visual differences, Gompyo remained distinctive and the sound, meaning and food goods were sufficiently similar. Second, it compared that use with Daehan’s established signs. Lettering, white-green-yellow colors, the smiling bear’s pose and food imagery preserved a closely similar creative motif despite round rather than straight bands. Sales presentation and related foods reinforced source confusion. Daehan’s pre-existing goodwill was not automatically transferred to the licensor by its earlier license. Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation — Figure 3 Intent and meaningful supervision The provision did not require a separate showing of a licensee’s unfair-competition purpose or intent. The owner could nevertheless avoid cancellation by proving substantial care. Contractual approval clauses, warnings and change requests were insufficient here: use occurred under the owner’s control or approval, the revised designs retained the confusing motif, and evidence did not show a concrete review of residual confusion or prompt effective action after formal complaints. The court also rejected abuse of rights. It did not decide the legality of all Daehan branding or cancel every Gompyo mark. Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation — Figure 4 Review what consumers actually see Preserve the registered sign, approved artwork, final packaging and online advertisements separately. Examine the combined effect of words, characters, colors and placement, and verify that requested corrections reach the sold product. After a complaint, document the assessment, required changes or suspension and actual compliance. These are practical recommendations drawn from the decision; approval paperwork alone does not show that confusion was effectively addressed. Trademark licensing, confusing packaging and cancellation — Figure 5 The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material. 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 licensed mark and the challenged use Two distinct comparisons Intent and meaningful supervision Review what consumers actually see TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Design creativity and combinations of familiar components ↗ Older Reading patent terms through the specification ↗ Related insights Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.29 Related designs: can a different top surface leave the same overall impression? Korean Patent Court case 2026Heo10106 considers whether changes to a food-waste processor’s controls and cover outweighed its shared proportions and silhouette. ↗ Read article Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.29 METAVIEW and metaVu: why pronunciation mattered in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10544 shows why visual differences between software brands did not overcome identical or highly similar pronunciation. ↗ Read article Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.28 When a design registration is invalidated: loss of legal interest in a scope-of-rights action Korea’s Patent Court dismissed case 2024Heo15950 after the design registration was finally invalidated, while ordering the defendant to bear the litigation costs. ↗ 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-1850 - 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-1850#article-1850-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1850#article-1850-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1850#article-1850-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1850#article-1850-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1852 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1849 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1894 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1894 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1893 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1893 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1888 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1888