What was cancelled, and what the court reversed
On 5 June 2025, Korea’s Patent Court set aside the IPTAB’s decision of 27 June 2024 in case 2022Dang3085. The court case was 2024Heo13916. The registered mark “Gobaksa Naengmyeon” (Gobaksa Naengmyeon), registration 1400456, had been filed on 12 June 2017 and registered on 1 November 2018 for Class 43 services including Korean restaurants. A petition filed on 9 November 2022 sought cancellation for all designated services on the ground of at least three continuous years of non-use in Korea.
Use and the procedural effect of non-response
The proprietor stated that a Korean restaurant operated with a “Pyeongtaek Gobaksa Naengmyeon” (Pyeongtaek Gobaksa Naengmyeon) sign from about 9 November 2017 to about 5 January 2020. Part of that period fell within the three years preceding the petition. The defendant had been properly served, without service by public notice, but filed no response and did not attend. The court treated the asserted facts as admitted under the applicable procedural rules. That procedural admission did not replace the separate legal assessment of whether the sign preserved the registered mark’s identity.
A geographic addition did not change identity here
Article 119(1)(3) of Korea’s Trade Mark Act permits use with modifications that do not undermine identity under ordinary trade perceptions. A registered mark need not always appear alone if its identity and independence remain recognizable. In this restaurant context, adding the place name Pyeongtaek before Gobaksa Naengmyeon did not give the prefix independent distinctiveness or create a different distinctive whole. The ordinary changes in lettering and color also did not attract attention as an unusual feature. This is a fact-specific conclusion, not blanket approval of every geographic addition or redesign.
Actual services and the scope of this petition
The sign identified Korean-restaurant services, one of the designated services, within the relevant three-year window. The court applied the rule for this combined petition that multiple designated services were treated as one indivisible cancellation claim: proof of use for one of them meant the entire petition could not succeed. It therefore set aside the administrative cancellation decision. That result should not be generalized into a claim that any use protects every service regardless of how a petition is framed or which period is relevant.
Maintain evidence of the sign as actually used
Keep dated photographs of signage and records linking the mark to the relevant business and services. Review whether added wording, typography and presentation leave the registered mark recognizable as an independent identifier. The case also illustrates why responding to pleadings matters: the factual consequences of non-response and the legal question of trade-mark identity are separate issues, and both may shape the outcome.
The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the facts and the court’s reasoning.