# A shared business brand is not automatically partnership property A Korean seafood-brand dispute distinguishes permission to use a mark from contributing the underlying rights to a joint business. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1854 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS A shared business brand is not automatically partnership property A Korean seafood-brand dispute distinguishes permission to use a mark from contributing the underlying rights to a joint business. Trademarks 2026.10.20 published IPLEX 7 min read The competing claims In case 2024Heo15479, decided on 23 April 2026, the Korean Patent Court considered the “Bada-ui Adeul” seafood brand. The defendant and C discussed a venture in October 2021 and began working together around January 2022. The defendant filed the figurative and word mark on 27 March 2023 and obtained registration No. 2162332 on 4 March 2024. The claimant said it had acquired C’s entire business, including the earlier mark, and sought invalidation. A shared business brand is not automatically partnership property — Figure 2 Similarity did not settle ownership The marks shared a young man holding a large fish, a seafood net and the same wording; changing the placement of the words did not remove their similarity. Relevant seafood wholesale and online retail services were also identical or similar. But Article 34(1)(20) of Korea’s Trademark Act requires knowledge, acquired through a business or other specified relationship, that the mark is another person’s used or intended mark. The court examined agreements, development, selection, control and quality management, rather than treating the business user as the owner automatically. A shared business brand is not automatically partnership property — Figure 3 Evidence of creation and independent business preparation The defendant commissioned and paid for the caricature and lettering on 9 December 2021, specifying a personal seafood brand in Tongyeong and the desired imagery. Earlier aquaculture training, oyster sales and an online seafood shop supported independent business preparation. Around the venture’s start, the defendant rented premises and bought equipment at personal expense and ordered personal cards, adding C’s cards. Copyright in the caricature was assigned to the defendant on 1 January 2022. These facts did not establish a gratuitous contribution of the mark to C or the partnership. Use, contribution and the outcome C used the mark on cards sent with goods and in online sales; the defendant was also enrolled for a time in C’s business pension insurance. These circumstances proved use, not a transfer of title. C’s separate application was refused on 29 November 2023, and the parties’ closing discussions supported the defendant’s personal-brand position without alone deciding ownership. The court upheld dismissal of the invalidation petition. Practical agreements should separately address ownership, licensing, filing names, permitted goods and channels, termination and logo copyright. The ruling does not make every jointly used brand the original creator’s personal property. 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 competing claims Similarity did not settle ownership Evidence of creation and independent business preparation Use, contribution and the outcome TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Design scope and the freedom to use prior designs ↗ Older Defining the target invention in a patent-scope proceeding ↗ 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-1854 - 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-1854#article-1854-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1854#article-1854-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1854#article-1854-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1854#article-1854-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1855 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1853 - 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