The dispute and its timeline
On 17 April 2025, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the proprietor’s challenge in case 2024Heo15431. DoctorsNow, registration No. 54614, was filed on 14 January 2014 and registered on 5 March 2015 for pharmaceutical goods and various services, including Class 44 telemedicine and teledentistry. The issue was non-use, rather than similarity to another mark.
Which three years matter?
The cancellation petition was filed on 28 November 2022. The relevant period therefore ran from 28 November 2019 through 27 November 2022. The tribunal ordered cancellation on 18 October 2024 in case 2022Dang3319. The proprietor principally defended non-use of the telemedicine and teledentistry services; non-use for the other challenged goods and services was not disputed.
Objective impediments and business choices
Legal prohibitions, sales restrictions or government import controls may justify non-use when the obstacle is not attributable to the proprietor. But a past prohibition does not settle the position throughout the entire assessment period. The court examined whether, and for how long, the designated services could actually have been offered.
Why the telemedicine defence failed
At least from 15 December 2020, temporary permission allowed non-face-to-face treatment during a severe COVID-19 alert where the doctor considered it safe. Evidence described around 20 telemedicine apps and expanding use. The proprietor’s explanations—being occupied with COVID-19 care and waiting for a complete regulatory framework—did not establish an objective inability to use the mark; preparations to launch the relevant services were also not shown.
No automatic restart of the clock
The court did not grant a fresh three-year grace period from regulatory relaxation. It assessed the whole look-back period, the duration of the obstacle and the substantial opportunity to use the mark after that obstacle changed. Equally, the judgment should not be read as making any brief easing of regulation sufficient for immediate cancellation.
Practical handling of a non-use challenge
Maintain separate records of actual trademark use and of objective impediments. Map each designated service against the applicable regulation and dates, then document what changed and how the business responded. Preparations may help explain the circumstances but are not automatically trademark use. In this case the proprietor’s court action failed and the cancellation decision stood; the judgment did not decide an infringement claim.
Original figure labels and forms are preserved; the surrounding text explains their meaning.
Read the related case commentary