A cosmetics registration left unused
On 12 March 2026, the Korean Supreme Court considered non-use cancellation of a cosmetics mark registered on 26 August 2019. The owner had used an earlier mark for accessories since 2014 and challenged the opposing party’s cosmetics registrations on 8 October 2019. Those registrations were eventually invalidated with finality on 27 July 2023. Before then, on 29 August 2022, the opposing party had sought non-use cancellation of the owner’s mark for 16 designated cosmetics goods. Packaging commissions, business registration, OEM and distribution discussions and training were relied on as launch preparations.
Use and proper reasons for non-use
Under the Korean statutory framework addressed by the court, continuous non-use in Korea for at least three years before the cancellation request may expose a registration to cancellation. The respondent must establish qualifying use within the relevant period for at least one of the challenged goods or a proper reason for non-use. An intention to use when filing and a justification for later non-use are separate questions.
Why litigation concerns were insufficient
The Patent Court had accepted a proper reason, taking account of infringement risk, possible criminal liability, uncertainty over the opposing marks’ validity and launch preparations. The Supreme Court required proof of a continuing objective, external obstacle beyond the control of the person entitled to use the mark. Force majeure, regulatory restrictions, sales prohibitions or import restrictions may qualify. Commercial difficulty or apprehension of litigation ordinarily reflects an internal business decision. The court accepted that the competing marks were phonetically similar; it did not dismiss the concern merely because no conflict existed.
Invalidity proceedings were not a use prohibition
Challenging the opposing registrations did not itself constitute use of the owner’s mark, establish a specific infringement finding or impose a legal duty to refrain from use. An infringement dispute could be adjudicated, with invalidity and abuse-of-right arguments assessed as appropriate. The record did not establish force majeure or legal restrictions preventing cosmetics trade. Launch preparations alone did not turn the period of non-use into one justified by an unavoidable external cause.
The result and portfolio management
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded; it did not declare that using the mark would carry no infringement risk. Businesses should manage dispute strategy and non-use exposure together, distinguish preparatory documents from evidence of actual trade mark use and record any genuine external obstacle and its duration. The judgment should not be read as an instruction to launch regardless of legal risk. The point is that concern, intention and preparation do not automatically preserve an unused registration.