# Foreign brands and bad-faith filings in Korea The Jean-Baptiste decision examines recognition among Japanese golfers and the purpose behind a later Korean trademark filing. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1873 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Foreign brands and bad-faith filings in Korea The Jean-Baptiste decision examines recognition among Japanese golfers and the purpose behind a later Korean trademark filing. Designs & Trademarks 2026.10.24 published IPLEX 6 min read The Jean-Baptiste registration dispute On September 25, 2025, Korea’s Patent Court decided case 2025Heo10280 concerning registration 1468035, combining a lion device with Jean-Baptiste. Filed on December 7, 2015, it received a registration decision on April 9, 2019 and was registered the following day for Class 28 goods including golf clubs, bags and gloves. One claimant had manufactured and sold golf goods under earlier marks since around 2014; the other imported them into Korea. They sought invalidation in April 2023. The IPTAB rejected the request on January 14, 2025 in 2023Dang1478, finding insufficient recognition of the earlier mark. The court reached a different conclusion. Registered trademark 1468035: lion device and Jean-Baptiste wording Earlier-used mark 1: lion device and Jean-Baptiste wording Recognition abroad at the filing date Article 34(1)(13) of the Korean Trademark Act addresses identical or similar marks adopted for an improper purpose where consumers in Korea or abroad recognise the earlier mark as identifying a particular source. The relevant date here was December 7, 2015. Later recognition could not automatically establish the position at filing. Although the application predated the 2016 amendment, the court applied Article 34(1)(13) under the transitional provisions because the registration decision occurred in 2019. Recognition among Japanese golf consumers was material; it was unnecessary to establish a separate finding of widespread recognition in Korea. The analysis considered use, advertising and trade evidence together. Advertising linked the mark, goods and business The court considered 2015 advertisements in Choice and EVEN, Japanese golf magazines with approximate circulations of 95,000 and 100,000 respectively. The advertisements showed branded products and the company’s website, enabling readers to associate the mark with the claimant’s goods, rather than merely proving that advertising expenditure had occurred. Golf tournaments held in 2015, equipment supplied to sponsored professionals and public Japanese-language posts on Facebook and websites reinforced that connection. Many posts included photographs of marked golf clubs. Around 60 Japanese trading partners and sales of approximately JPY 110 million by 2015 provided commercial context. Taken together, the evidence supported recognition of earlier mark 1 as a source identifier among Japanese consumers at filing. The decision illustrates the value of dated material connecting the actual sign, products and supplier, rather than relying on a later assertion that a brand was known. Why the court found an improper purpose The registered mark and earlier mark 1 were identical in their combined device and wording, pronunciation and meaning. The relevant golf-club goods were also identical. There was no material substantiating independent conception or development of the sign by the registrant. The court also considered other applications and registrations for marks identical or similar to the claimant’s marks. These circumstances supported an intention to free-ride on the earlier mark’s goodwill or obstruct its owner’s business. The court found a ground for invalidity and cancelled the decision rejecting invalidation. Its conclusion rested on earlier mark 1; it expressly left the remaining grounds, including those concerning earlier mark 2, undecided. Prepare a chronology before filing or challenging A Korean register search and a review of actual overseas use answer different questions. When selecting a name or logo, examine whether it is already used abroad as well as whether an identical Korean registration exists. Earlier users should organise advertisements, publication dates, product photographs, distributor records and sales evidence around the opposing applicant’s filing date. Applicants who independently develop a mark should retain the naming process, design drafts and business preparation records. The absence of design records was one circumstance in this case, not an automatic rule establishing bad faith. Filing order alone does not resolve a dispute about overseas goodwill and the reasons for choosing a sign. 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: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE The Jean-Baptiste registration dispute Recognition abroad at the filing date Advertising linked the mark, goods and business Why the court found an improper purpose Prepare a chronology before filing or challenging TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Track-light designs: why the connectors mattered ↗ Older Radiator patents: linking geometry to technical effects ↗ 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-1873 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1873#article-1873-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1873#article-1873-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1873#article-1873-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1873#article-1873-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1873#article-1873-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1874 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1872 - 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