# IP Disputes & Appeals We develop strategies for IP challenges and disputes by assessing the rights, technical issues and evidence in light of your commercial objectives. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes HOME / IPLEX SERVICES IPLEX SERVICES IP Disputes & Appeals We develop strategies for IP challenges and disputes by assessing the rights, technical issues and evidence in light of your commercial objectives. Overview Korean IP proceedings Cases Insights for this service SCOPE & APPROACH Scope of work Our dispute advice starts with the asserted rights, technical issues and evidence. We assess the legal grounds, procedural position and commercial objectives to determine the appropriate proceeding and response. 01 Proceedings & oppositions We identify the grounds, evidence and relief sought in refusal appeals, invalidation, scope-of-rights and cancellation proceedings. 02 Infringement analysis & submissions We compare the relevant product or service with the asserted rights, evaluate the evidence and develop arguments for written submissions and responses. 03 Dispute strategy & coordination We assess deadlines, parallel proceedings and commercial exposure, working with litigation counsel where court action is required. Prepare for your consultation Provide the relevant IP numbers, correspondence, product or service information and any response or hearing deadlines. TALK TO IPLEX IP advice for the business decisions ahead. Tell us about the matter and your objectives. We will work with you to identify the issues, set priorities and agree the scope of our advice. Discuss this service ↗ +82 2 556 1028 KOREAN IP TRIALS & APPEALS Korean IP trials: types and key issues Korea’s Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board considers registration, validity and the scope of patents, utility models, designs and trademarks. Appeals from examination decisions and disputes between parties require different claims and evidence. The appropriate route depends on the issue and related proceedings. Appeal against refusal Appeal against dismissal of an amendment Invalidation of a registration Positive scope-of-rights trial Negative scope-of-rights trial Cancellation of a trademark registration Correction trial Invalidation of a correction Cancellation of a trademark license registration Trial for a non-exclusive license Invalidation of a patent-term extension Appeal against cancellation of a design registration 01 Patents · Utility models · Designs · Trademarks Appeal against refusal This procedure reviews a refusal of an application. Arguments address the actual grounds, such as patent novelty and inventive step, trademark distinctiveness and similarity, or design registration requirements. Key points to review Review the decision, examination history, cited evidence and appeal deadline, together with any available re-examination or amendment route. 02 Designs · Trademarks Appeal against dismissal of an amendment This appeal challenges the dismissal of an amendment, for example because it allegedly changes the substance of the original application. Its object differs from an appeal against refusal of the application itself. Key points to review Compare the original drawings or mark with the proposed amendment to assess continuity of identity, and coordinate the appeal with the underlying application. 03 Patents · Utility models · Designs · Trademarks Invalidation of a registration This trial examines statutory grounds for invalidating a registered right. Relevant issues include prior art and disclosure for patents, registrability and earlier rights for trademarks, and prior designs and creative features for designs. Key points to review The challenger links each ground to dated evidence; the owner examines technical distinctions and evidential gaps. The effective date of invalidity depends on the ground. 04 Patents · Utility models · Designs · Trademarks Positive scope-of-rights trial The rights holder seeks a ruling that another party’s technology, product or sign falls within the scope of the registered right. The technology, product or sign must be clearly identified and compared with the protected scope. Key points to review Prepare claim charts, product evidence or mark-and-goods comparisons. A scope ruling is distinct from damages or an injunction, so related court proceedings require separate planning. 05 Patents · Utility models · Designs · Trademarks Negative scope-of-rights trial A party using or intending to use a technology, product or sign seeks a ruling that it falls outside another party’s right. This can address a warning letter or uncertainty surrounding a concrete business plan. Key points to review Define the actual implementation rather than an abstract plan. Examine missing elements, design or sign similarity, and any relevant freely usable prior-art defense. 06 Trademarks Cancellation of a trademark registration This trial addresses statutory cancellation grounds such as non-use or misuse after registration. A principal non-use ground concerns lack of use in Korea on the designated goods for at least three consecutive years before filing, without justifiable reason. Key points to review For the defense, connect dated transactions to the user, goods and identity of the mark. Misuse raises separate issues of misleading quality or origin; cancellation effects also vary by ground. 07 Patents · Utility models Correction trial The owner seeks permitted corrections to registered patent or utility-model claims, descriptions or drawings. Narrowing claims, correcting errors and clarifying ambiguity are possible purposes; substantive enlargement of protection is not permitted. Key points to review Check original disclosure, the before-and-after scope and effects on related litigation. Pending invalidation or cancellation proceedings may require a correction request within that procedure instead of a separate trial. 08 Patents · Utility models Invalidation of a correction This trial challenges a correction that allegedly fails statutory requirements. It is distinct from invalidating the registered right itself and focuses on whether the correction stayed within permitted limits. Key points to review Compare the corrected text with the original disclosure for added matter or substantive expansion or alteration, keeping challenges to the correction separate from challenges to the right. 09 Trademarks Cancellation of a trademark license registration This procedure targets a registered exclusive or non-exclusive trademark license when statutory grounds arise, such as use misleading consumers about quality or origin. The license registration, rather than the mark registration itself, is at issue. Key points to review Compare the license contract and registration with the permitted scope and actual labeling and sales, and assess related cancellation or contractual remedies. 10 Patents · Utility models · Designs Trial for a non-exclusive license This trial may be relevant where working a registered right requires use of, or conflicts with, an earlier-filed right and the necessary permission cannot be obtained. A wish to use another party’s technology alone is insufficient. Key points to review Review dependency or conflict, licensing negotiations and applicable technical and economic conditions, including the scope and remuneration that a ruling may require. 11 Patents Invalidation of a patent-term extension This trial challenges statutory defects in a registered patent-term extension. The validity of the original patent and the legality of the extension are separate questions, requiring review of the extension ground and period calculation. Key points to review Compare extension records, approvals and relevant dates, and distinguish grounds affecting the whole extension from those affecting only part of the period. 12 Designs Appeal against cancellation of a design registration This appeal challenges a cancellation decision, including one arising from opposition to a partially examined design registration. It is distinct from refusal before registration and from a design invalidation trial. Key points to review Review the opposition, evidence, cancellation decision and original drawings; prepare arguments on similarity and registrability and calculate the appeal deadline from service of the decision. Related mechanisms and subsequent proceedings Invalidation of renewal or goods-reclassification registrations Separate invalidation procedures may address statutory defects in a trademark renewal or goods-reclassification registration. Distinguish the challenged registration act from the original trademark registration and check the date, applicable law and filing period. Patent and utility-model cancellation requests This mechanism seeks reconsideration of a registration within the statutory period following publication. Eligibility, grounds, timing and review routes differ from invalidation trials. Review the published prior evidence and the claims concerned. Retrial Retrial is an exceptional route against a final trial decision on statutory grounds. Disagreement with the result alone is insufficient; the date of discovering the ground, supporting evidence and time limits must be checked. Judicial review and infringement litigation An action to revoke a trial decision is a judicial procedure before Korea’s Patent Court. It differs from an infringement action seeking an injunction or damages. Coordinate the tribunal issues, evidence and procedural stage with the separate court case. Discuss an IP trial or dispute ↗ SELECTED EXPERIENCE Representative matters Explore the IP issues we have addressed, the work we undertook and the outcomes reported. Brand protection ↗ Challenge earlier marks. Defend your registrations. Matter Earlier registrations blocking a new application, and cancellation challenges against a client's own trademarks Work We represent clients seeking cancellation as well as trademark owners defending their registrations, developing arguments around the statutory grounds and evidence of use. Outcome / experience Reported outcomes include full and partial cancellation, as well as dismissal of cancellation claims. ↗ Explore the matter Insights for this service Explore case commentary and practical guidance on this area of IP law. Patents 2026.10.02 Korean patent scope proceedings after testing and disposal of a product ↗ Case 2025Heo10277 distinguishes identification of the compared invention, acts of production and the continuing interest in a scope determination from the merits of infringement. Designs 2026.10.01 Design similarity in Korea: a concealed end face can still matter ↗ A railing-pipe dispute illustrates the importance of appearances during sale and installation, prior designs and functional features in assessing overall visual impression. 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. Patents 2026.10.01 When a dosage clarification changes a patent claim: Korea’s Supreme Court on correction ↗ Decision 2023Hu11487 examines whether adding a mass-basis explanation to pharmaceutical claims qualifies as an admissible correction. Designs 2026.09.30 Food-Container Designs: Giving Proper Weight to Features Already Known ↗ Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후11026 assesses design scope through prior designs and the overall impression of the remaining features. Trademarks 2026.09.30 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. View all related insights (97) 2026.09.30 The Same Cleaning Function Does Not Necessarily Establish Patent Equivalence 2026.09.29 Hairband Design Validity: Explaining the Visual Effect of the Differences 2026.09.29 An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? 2026.09.29 The Same Prior Art, a Different Rejection: The Applicant’s Opportunity to Respond 2026.09.28 Model Numbers on Compatible Refills: When Is a Sign Used as a Trade Mark? 2026.09.17 Non-Use Trademark Cancellation: Responses Illustrated by Cases 2026.07.31 Trademark Opposition: Filing Periods, Procedure and Responses 2026.07.09 Protecting Trademarks Abroad: Lessons from the Melona Case in Kazakhstan 2026.06.23 Responding to a Patent Warning Letter: Considering Invalidation Proceedings 2026.06.11 Recurring Trademark Disputes: Five Risks Businesses Often Miss 2026.04.29 Recurring Design Disputes: Infringement Criteria Illustrated by Cases 2026.04.21 Opening a Route to Market through Non-Use Trademark Cancellation 2026.04.01 After an Unsuccessful Patent Appeal: Separate Applications 2026.03.27 Understanding Trademark Opposition 2025.11.14 Patent Court Finds Earphone-Case Design Based on Travel Luggage Lacks Creativity 2025.11.14 Explaining the LG Electronics WashTower Trademark Decision 2025.01.09 Understanding US Copyright Infringement Requirements 2024.09.26 Case Result: Petition for Non-Use Trademark Cancellation Granted 2023.12.20 Trademark Similarity Case Analysis: iSeum 2023.12.19 Trademark Similarity: A Review of a Court Decision 2023.12.18 Trademark Similarity: Summary of a Court Decision 2023.12.15 Trademark Similarity Case: CARTE BLUE 2023.12.14 Trademark Similarity: Cyber Frontier versus New Frontier 2023.12.13 Trademark Similarity: Case Summary 2023.12.08 Trademark Similarity: LOTTE DE ART versus ART 2023.12.07 Trademark Similarity: GINGANET versus ZINKA 2023.12.06 Trademark Similarity: Reviewing Judicial Reasoning 2023.12.05 Trademark Similarity Case Analysis: now 2023.12.04 Trademark Similarity Case: SOLO 2023.11.30 Trademark Similarity Case: The Rhinoceros Mark 2023.11.29 Trademark Similarity Case: The Kangaroo Mark 2023.11.28 Trademark Similarity Case: Anbeullin and evelyn 2023.11.27 Trademark Similarity: Judicial Analysis 2023.11.23 Service Mark Similarity: Case Review 2023.11.22 Trademark Similarity Case: Woori Doori 2023.11.20 Trademark Similarity: ELOCOM versus Elecom 2023.11.17 Trademark Similarity: Ellis versus PERRY ELLIS 2023.11.15 Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Summary 2023.11.09 Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS 2023.11.08 Trademark Similarity: Summary of Judicial Findings 2023.11.06 Trademark Similarity: Key Points from a Court Decision 2023.11.02 Trademark Similarity: Onggijangi Hangari Kalguksu versus Hangari 2023.11.01 Trademark Similarity Case: BOSS AUDIO SYSTEMS 2023.10.31 Trademark Similarity Case: dodo cosmetics 2023.10.30 Trademark Similarity Case: Noblesse Furniture 2023.10.27 Trademark Similarity Case: Sinjeonggol Traditional Bone Soup 2023.10.26 Trademark Similarity Case: BRAVA 2023.10.23 Trademark Similarity: Judicial Findings in Context 2023.10.19 Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Review 2023.10.17 Trademark Similarity Case: SANY 2023.10.16 Trademark Similarity: Labrador Retriever versus DAWN FIELD 2023.10.13 Trademark Similarity: TIMEWISE, Wise Brown and WISER 2023.10.12 Trademark Similarity Case: SNOW PERFUME 2023.10.11 Trademark Similarity Case: Whotel 2023.10.10 Trademark Similarity Case: NICOLE MILLER 2023.10.06 Trademark Similarity Case: CRYSIS 2023.10.05 Trademark Similarity Case: Ritz Plaza Hotel 2023.04.18 How to Respond Effectively to a Patent Infringement Warning Letter 2023.04.10 Trademark Similarity Case: THE MAGIC BULLET 2023.04.06 Trademark Similarity Case: IBK 2023.04.05 Trademark Similarity: ORGASOL versus ORAG 2023.03.27 Trademark Similarity: birdie versus Blue Birdie 2023.03.22 Trademark Similarity: bistro dº versus BISTRO 2023.03.15 Trademark Similarity: A Summary of the Court’s Approach 2023.03.14 Trademark Similarity Case: JS Jangsu Gudeul 2023.03.13 Trademark Similarity Case: UGLYDOLL 2023.03.10 Trademark Similarity: LUISE versus MS. LOUISE 2023.03.09 Trademark Similarity: uniPOS versus POS 2023.03.06 Trademark Similarity Case: M Plus 2023.03.03 Trademark Similarity: A Figurative-Mark Case 2023.02.28 Trademark Similarity: Examining a Judicial Decision 2023.02.27 Trademark Similarity Case: Gyeongju Bread 2023.02.24 Trademark Similarity Case: PRO-PAD 2023.02.22 Trademark Similarity: F1X versus F1 and Other Marks 2023.02.21 Trademark Similarity: AUTOMAGICALLY versus MAGIC AUTO 2023.02.20 Trademark Similarity: UNSTRESS versus STRESS-OUT and Another Mark 2023.02.17 Figurative Trademark Similarity: Case-Law Summary 2023.02.16 Figurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis 2023.02.15 Trademark Similarity: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin 2023.02.14 Trademark Similarity Case: 700 2023.02.13 Trademark Similarity: Key Judicial Findings 2023.02.07 Trademark Similarity: A Pictorial-Mark Case 2023.02.06 Trademark Similarity: GRAZIA versus GRACIA 2023.02.03 Trademark Similarity: ELIN versus Eryn Brinie 2023.02.02 Trademark Similarity: RABVAC versus LAVAC 2023.02.01 Trademark Similarity: SERA versus Ceragem 2023.01.31 Trademark Similarity: PRAGRAN versus PROGRAF 2023.01.26 Trademark Similarity: How Courts Assess Similar Appearance 2023.01.25 Trademark Similarity Case: Seolhwang 2023.01.20 Trademark Similarity Case: Enlux 2023.01.18 Trademark Similarity Case: Foodgen 2023.01.16 Trademark Similarity Case: Lee Woo-il’s Cartoon 2023.01.13 Trademark Similarity Case: Ganji 2023.01.12 Trademark Similarity Case: Indeli 2023.01.05 Trademark Similarity Case: DEQUINONE 2023.01.04 Trademark Similarity Case: NOVATEX 2023.01.03 Comparing Dominant Trademark Elements: CIRCLE SURROUND AUTOMOTIVE versus CIRCLE ↗ All services ↗ Consultation questions - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#service-overview - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-guide - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#case-studies - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact?service=disputes - tel:+8225561028 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-refusal - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-amendment - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-invalidation - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-positive-scope - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-negative-scope - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-trademark-cancellation - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-correction - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-correction-invalidation - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-licence-cancellation - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-compulsory-licence - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-term-extension - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#tribunal-design-cancellation-appeal - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact?service=disputes - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1538124 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1787 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1783 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1781 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1777 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1775 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1773 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1770 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1769 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1538124 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1515068 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1502590 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1494726 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1488356 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1463983 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1458467 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1442570 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1433971 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1348302 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1348282 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1156209 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1106175 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/972319 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/971126 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/970594 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/969157 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/968594 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/968236 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/965710 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/964927 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/964524 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/963243 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/962777 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/961169 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/960733 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/959816 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/959119 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/956969 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/956010 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/954273 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/952883 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/951873 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/948417 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/947815 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/946550 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/944715 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/942261 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/941720 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/941252 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/940245 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/939826 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/934875 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/933192 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/931869 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/931384 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/930470 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/929608 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/928995 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/928360 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/926636 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/925937 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/830474 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/826837 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/825144 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/824754 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/818600 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/817208 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/812997 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/812139 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/811310 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/810292 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/809693 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/808205 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/807166 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/805150 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/804227 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/801987 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800780 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800214 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/799578 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/798283 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/797197 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796667 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796069 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/795539 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/792119 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/791422 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/790420 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/789445 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/788779 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/788063 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/784427 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/783898 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/782825 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/781601 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/780316 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/778787 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/778164 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/774057 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/773293 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/773092 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/faq