KIM & CHO periodically publishes newsletters on recent developments in Korean intellectual property law and practice. The articles below summarize legislative amendments, examination guidelines, and strategic considerations relevant to businesses and innovators seeking IP protection in Korea.
Published
Global IP Trends & Insights - Seventh Circuit Finds “PIZZA PUFF” Potentially Generic
Seventh Circuit: Genericness and Protectability of “PIZZA PUFF - Because the primary significance of “PIZZA PUFF” to relevant consumers could be the name of a type of pizza product rather than a source identifier, the registrant failed to establish the required likelihood of success for preliminary injunctive relief.
On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected preliminary injunctive relief based on the registered “PIZZA PUFF” mark, finding that the term could be understood by relevant consumers as the name of a type of pizza product rather than as an indicator of source.
Illinois Tamale Company had long sold pizza puff products and owned registrations relating to “Pizza Puff” and “Puff.” After Little Caesars launched its “Crazy Puffs” product, Illinois Tamale alleged that the defendant’s use of related wording infringed its trade mark rights.
The Court emphasized that genericness turns on the primary significance of the term to the relevant public. The decisive question is whether consumers understand the term as identifying a category of goods or as identifying a particular commercial source. Evidence may include consumer surveys, dictionary definitions, and actual use by consumers, competitors and the industry.
Although a federal registration carries a presumption of validity, that presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the evidence concerning marketplace perception sufficiently undermined the premise that “PIZZA PUFF” was protectable for purposes of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits.
The decision is a reminder that registration alone does not eliminate genericness risk. Brand owners should use marks consistently as source identifiers, pair product terms with house marks where appropriate, monitor third-party usage, and preserve evidence demonstrating how consumers perceive the mark.
Client Alert Summary
Even a registered mark may lose protection if relevant consumers understand it as the name of a product category. Brand owners should preserve and monitor evidence of marketplace perception, including surveys, dictionaries, industry usage and competitor use.
Published
Korea's 2026 Patent Landscape for AI Inventions: Updated Examination Practice and Super-Accelerated Examination
Key developments for AI startups and technology companies seeking patent protection in Korea
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming both technology development and the patent system. In Korea, recent developments have focused on two complementary objectives: clarifying the examination standards applicable to AI-related inventions and enabling eligible technology startups to obtain patent examination results much faster.
In 2026, the Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) updated its examination practice guidelines for AI-related inventions and introduced a dedicated super-accelerated examination track for early-stage AI and advanced biotechnology startups. These developments may be particularly relevant to companies seeking to secure early patent rights for rapidly evolving technologies.
Updated Examination Practice for AI-Related Inventions
Korea has maintained dedicated examination guidance for AI-related inventions since 2020. The AI examination practice guidelines were amended in January 2026 and form part of the broader technology-specific examination guidelines published by MOIP.
The guidelines address inventions implemented using machine-learning-based AI technologies and provide guidance concerning both description requirements and patentability.
AI-related inventions may involve multiple technical components, including:
collection and preprocessing of training data;
definition and implementation of a machine-learning model;
model training and optimization;
processing of input data;
generation of output data; and
use of the output in an AI service or physical application.
The updated guidance emphasizes the need to explain the technical implementation of the AI invention sufficiently in the specification. For example, where the invention depends on a particular learning model or data-processing technique, the specification should provide sufficient information regarding the relevant technical means and the relationship between input and output data.
Practical Implication
For AI companies, simply describing an AI model or its intended result may not be sufficient to establish a strong patent position.
Applicants should consider explaining what technical problem is being solved, how the AI system technically solves that problem, and what specific technical features produce the claimed result.
This is particularly important when drafting claims directed to AI-based methods, systems, data-processing techniques, or applications incorporating machine-learning technology.
Patentability of AI-Related Inventions
AI-related inventions remain subject to the general requirements of Korean patent law, including the requirements for an invention, novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
The fact that an invention uses AI does not, by itself, determine whether it is patentable. Rather, the examination focuses on the claimed subject matter and the technical features of the invention.
Accordingly, companies should distinguish between:
an abstract idea or mathematical concept;
an AI model or algorithm considered in isolation; and
an AI-implemented technical solution that produces a concrete technical effect.
The drafting strategy should therefore focus on identifying and clearly claiming the technical contribution of the AI technology rather than merely describing the commercial objective or functionality of the AI system.
Korea's Super-Accelerated Examination for AI Startups
In February 2026, MOIP introduced a dedicated super-accelerated examination track for early-stage startups in the AI and advanced biotechnology fields.
Under the new track, eligible applicants can obtain a patent examination result within one month, providing a substantially faster route to patent examination than the ordinary examination process.
MOIP has explained that the program is intended to help startups secure IP rights during the critical early stages of commercialization, market entry, investment, and business development.
The program forms part of a broader policy to accelerate patent examination in strategically important technology fields. In March 2026, MOIP announced plans to expand the super-accelerated examination track to startups in advanced technology fields more broadly and to reduce the overall patent examination waiting period over the coming years.
Why the Two Developments Matter Together
The significance of these developments is not limited to faster examination.
For an AI startup, the value of speed depends on the quality of the patent application being examined.
A company may benefit from rapid examination only if its application has been drafted to clearly identify the technical contribution of the AI invention and to satisfy the applicable disclosure and patentability requirements.
This creates a practical two-step strategy:
Step 1 — Build a patent application that clearly captures the technical contribution of the AI invention.
This includes carefully considering:
the technical problem addressed by the invention;
the relevant AI architecture or processing steps;
training data and preprocessing techniques;
the relationship between input data and output;
technical effects demonstrated by the invention; and
alternative embodiments that should be covered by the claims.
Step 2 — Consider whether accelerated examination can support the company's business timeline.
Where eligible, super-accelerated examination may be particularly valuable when patent rights are needed in connection with:
investment or fundraising;
technology licensing;
strategic partnerships;
market entry;
M&A or due diligence; or
overseas patent filing and global IP strategy.
Strategic Considerations for AI Companies
AI companies operating or commercializing technology in Korea should consider patent strategy at an early stage rather than waiting until the technology is commercially mature.
In particular, companies should evaluate:
First, whether the invention contains a patentable technical contribution.
The application should be structured around the technical aspects of the invention rather than merely its business purpose.
Second, whether the specification provides sufficient technical disclosure.
Because AI inventions may depend heavily on training data, preprocessing, model architecture, and input/output relationships, these elements should be considered carefully when preparing the specification.
Third, whether rapid examination is commercially important.
For startups seeking investment or entering a rapidly developing market, obtaining an examination result within a short period may have significant strategic value.
Fourth, whether the Korean application should form part of a broader international filing strategy.
A Korean patent application may serve not only to establish domestic protection but also as an important component of a global patent portfolio.
Conclusion
Korea's 2026 developments demonstrate that AI patent strategy is increasingly becoming a combination of substantive patent drafting and procedural timing strategy.
The updated AI examination guidelines provide greater practical guidance for applicants seeking protection for AI-related inventions, while the super-accelerated examination track offers eligible AI startups an opportunity to obtain examination results within approximately one month.
For AI companies, the key question is therefore not simply “Can we patent our AI technology?” but also “How should we draft and time our Korean patent applications to maximize both the scope and commercial value of protection?”
Early coordination between R&D teams, patent counsel, and business strategy can be critical in answering that question.
Published
Patent Term Extension in Korea: Key Changes Effective July 22, 2025
Korea's patent term extension (PTE) system provides additional protection for certain pharmaceutical and agrochemical inventions where regulatory approval required for marketing has delayed the effective exercise of patent rights.
Significant amendments to the Korean Patent Act became effective on July 22, 2025, introducing important limitations concerning the duration of extensions and the number of patents that may be extended based on the same marketing authorization.
Eligibility for Patent Term Extension
PTE may be available for patents covering pharmaceutical products and agrochemical products where regulatory approval is required before the patented product can be marketed.
The purpose of the system is to compensate, within statutory limits, for a portion of the patent term effectively lost while the patentee undergoes the required testing and regulatory approval process.
Maximum Five-Year Extension
The maximum period of patent term extension remains five years.
The actual extension period is determined by reference to the period during which the patented invention could not be effectively practiced due to the regulatory testing and approval process, subject to the statutory requirements and exclusions.
In calculating the extension period, delays attributable to the patentee may be excluded.
New 14-Year Limitation
One of the key changes effective July 22, 2025 is the introduction of a 14-year cap measured from the date of marketing authorization.
Accordingly, even where the statutory calculation would otherwise permit a longer extension, the total extended patent term cannot exceed the applicable 14-year limit calculated from the date of marketing authorization.
This limitation should be taken into account when evaluating the practical value and timing of a PTE application.
One Patent per Product
The amendments also introduced a one-patent-per-product limitation for extensions based on the same marketing authorization.
In other words, where multiple patents may be associated with the same product and marketing authorization, only one patent may be selected for PTE based on that authorization.
This change makes the strategic selection of the patent to be extended particularly important for pharmaceutical and agrochemical patent portfolios.
Practical Considerations for Patent Owners
The amended PTE regime has important implications for patent portfolio management.
Patent owners should consider, at an early stage:
which patent is the most commercially valuable candidate for extension;
whether the patented invention falls within the scope of the relevant regulatory approval;
the period attributable to regulatory testing and approval;
whether any delays are attributable to the patentee; and
whether the 14-year limitation may affect the practical benefit of an extension.
For portfolios containing multiple patents relating to the same pharmaceutical or agrochemical product, the one-patent-per-product rule makes early portfolio and PTE strategy particularly important.
Conclusion
The amendments effective July 22, 2025 retain the maximum five-year PTE while introducing additional restrictions, including the 14-year cap measured from marketing authorization and the one-patent-per-product rule.
Companies developing pharmaceutical or agrochemical products in Korea should therefore review their patent portfolios and regulatory timelines together, rather than treating PTE as a purely post-approval issue.
Published
Deferring Examination Requests Without Payment for Up to Almost 5 Years (58 Months)
Korean Patent Article 40-3 (Deferment of Examination): strategies to delay examination costs and timing
Under Korean Patent Article 40-3 (Deferment of Examination), applicants can defer the examination fee payment for a considerable period, effectively pushing back the start of examination by up to nearly five years from the filing date.
This offers applicants meaningful flexibility to delay costs and make more informed decisions on pursuing examination for applications that are not immediately critical to their business.
The Examination Fee Deferral for Up to 58 Months
When filing the examination request, a deferral of the examination fee payment can be simultaneously requested. This payment can be deferred for an additional 22 months from the date the examination was requested.
The fee amount is locked in based on the fee schedule effective on the date the examination was initially requested, even though payment is made much later.
Practical Effect
The start of examination can be effectively deferred for up to 5 years (60 months) from the filing date, achieved by requesting examination at the 36-month deadline and electing the full 24-month deferral. The examination fee payment deadline can be extended for a maximum of 22 months, which allows the fee to be paid up to 58 months from the filing date.
This strategy allows applicants to delay costs and make more informed decisions on pursuing examination for applications not immediately critical to their business.
When This System Is Particularly Useful
Cost-Sensitive Companies (Startups or applicants with limited budgets)
Enables cost distribution by delaying examination fees for non-urgent applications.
Uncertainty of the commercial potential of a technology
Allows time to evaluate market conditions or technical value.
To perform strategic management of project timelines
To abandon non-essential applications during the deferral period without costs.
Published
Protecting Plants and New Plant Varieties in Korea: Patents and Plant Variety Protection
South Korea offers two distinct intellectual property regimes for protecting plant-related innovations: patent protection under the Korean Patent Act and plant variety protection under the Plant Variety Protection Act. Although both systems may protect innovations involving plants, they serve different purposes and have different requirements.
Patent Protection for Plant-Related Inventions
Under the Korean patent system, inventions relating to plants may be protected where they satisfy the general requirements for patentability, including novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.
Patent protection may extend to various types of plant-related inventions, including plant production or breeding methods, genetically modified plants, and certain plant-related biological materials or plant parts, depending on the specific subject matter and claim structure.
Specification and Biological Material Requirements
The invention must be sufficiently described in the patent specification so that a person skilled in the relevant technical field can understand and practice the invention.
Where the invention involves biological materials, such as microorganisms, and the relevant starting material or biological material cannot readily be obtained by a person skilled in the art, deposit requirements may apply. In such circumstances, the relevant biological material may need to be deposited with a designated depository institution before or in connection with the patent application, together with the required documentation.
Accordingly, applicants seeking patent protection for plant-related inventions should consider the availability and reproducibility of the biological materials at an early stage of prosecution.
Patent Term
The standard patent term in Korea is 20 years from the filing date, subject to the applicable statutory requirements and any available term adjustment or extension.
Plant Variety Protection
Plant variety protection provides a separate regime specifically designed to protect new plant varieties.
Unlike patent protection, variety protection is focused on the characteristics of the variety itself. An applicant generally must demonstrate that the variety satisfies the statutory requirements for protection, including the relevant requirements concerning novelty, distinctness, uniformity, and stability (DUS).
A DUS examination or testing process is therefore an important component of the registration procedure.
Duration of Protection
The protection period is generally:
20 years from the date of registration for most plant varieties; and
25 years from the date of registration for certain woody plants and other varieties subject to the longer statutory period.
Limitations and Exceptions
Plant variety rights are subject to statutory limitations and exceptions. In particular, certain acts conducted for research or experimental purposes may fall outside the scope of the exclusive right. In addition, the Korean system recognizes certain farmers' privileges, subject to statutory conditions and limitations.
The international framework for plant variety protection is also significantly influenced by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), under which member countries apply common principles and standards for the protection of new plant varieties.
Choosing the Appropriate Protection Strategy
Patent protection and plant variety protection are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Depending on the nature of the innovation, it may be appropriate to consider both regimes.
For example, patent protection may be particularly relevant to a technical invention, such as a breeding technique, genetic modification technology, or other technical process, while plant variety protection may be more appropriate where the principal asset is the new plant variety itself.
Therefore, businesses, breeders, research institutions, and agricultural technology companies should assess the nature of their innovation and the applicable statutory requirements at an early stage to determine the most effective IP protection strategy.
Published
South Korea Introduces a Trademark Coexistence System
Registration of a Later-Filed Trademark with the Consent of the Prior Trademark Owner
South Korea introduced a trademark coexistence system effective May 1, 2024. Under the amended Korean Trademark Act, a later-filed trademark that is identical or similar to a prior registered trademark may, subject to certain requirements, be registered with the consent of the owner of the prior registered trademark.
The introduction of this system provides businesses with an additional option for addressing conflicts between trademarks and allows trademark owners, in appropriate circumstances, to agree to the coexistence of their respective marks.
What Is the Trademark Coexistence System?
The trademark coexistence system allows a later-filed trademark to be registered even where an identical or similar trademark has already been registered, provided that the owner of the prior registered trademark consents to the registration of the later-filed trademark, subject to the requirements and limitations under the Korean Trademark Act.
Under the previous system, Company A's prior registration could prevent Company B's trademark from being registered. Under the current system, however, Company B may be able to obtain registration if Company A consents to the registration and the statutory requirements are satisfied.
The system is significant because it provides the parties with greater flexibility to resolve trademark conflicts through agreement rather than necessarily resorting to trademark assignment, cancellation, opposition, or litigation.
When Can the System Be Used?
The trademark coexistence system may be particularly useful in the following circumstances.
When the parties agree that their trademarks can coexist
Where two businesses use identical or similar trademarks but are willing to operate their respective businesses under agreed conditions, coexistence may allow both parties to maintain their brands without requiring one party to assign or abandon its trademark rights.
When the prior trademark owner is willing to permit registration
The prior trademark owner may consent to the registration of the later-filed trademark while continuing to retain its own trademark rights.
When the parties wish to prevent or resolve a trademark dispute
A coexistence arrangement may provide a practical means of resolving a potential trademark conflict at an early stage and reducing the risk of future disputes.
Does the Prior Owner's Consent Automatically Guarantee Registration?
No. The consent of the prior trademark owner does not automatically guarantee registration of the later-filed trademark.
Under the Korean Trademark Act, the consent-based exception addresses certain refusal grounds arising from a prior registered trademark. However, other statutory requirements and grounds for refusal must still be considered.
In addition, the Act provides exceptions to the consent-based registration mechanism, including circumstances involving the same trademark used on identical goods.
Accordingly, before relying on a prior trademark owner's consent, it is important to review:
whether the marks are identical or similar;
whether the designated goods or services are identical or similar;
the scope of the prior owner's consent;
any other grounds for refusal under the Korean Trademark Act; and
the actual and anticipated use of the trademarks.
Trademark Coexistence Agreements
In practice, parties considering coexistence may enter into a Trademark Coexistence Agreement setting out the terms under which their respective trademarks will coexist.
Although a coexistence agreement does not replace the statutory requirements for trademark registration, it can provide an important contractual framework governing the parties' respective trademark use and business activities.
A coexistence agreement may address matters including:
the trademarks each party may use;
the respective goods and services covered by each trademark;
the parties' respective business or market areas;
permitted forms of trademark use;
future expansion into additional goods, services, or markets;
measures designed to minimize consumer confusion;
procedures for handling trademark disputes; and
remedies for breach of the agreement.
For this reason, a coexistence agreement should generally address more than the simple statement that one party consents to the registration of the other's trademark. The agreement should also take into account the parties' anticipated business activities and potential future areas of conflict.
Key Considerations for Businesses
The introduction of the trademark coexistence system gives businesses an additional practical option for dealing with conflicts involving prior trademark registrations. Businesses should nevertheless consider the following matters carefully.
First, the scope of the prior owner's consent should be clearly defined. The parties should identify precisely which trademark application and which goods or services are covered by the consent.
Second, the coexistence agreement should be considered from a long-term perspective. The agreement should, where appropriate, address future product or service expansion, entry into new markets, and changes in the parties' business activities.
Third, the prior owner's consent does not eliminate all grounds for refusal. A comprehensive assessment of the later-filed trademark's registrability should therefore be conducted before filing.
Fourth, the parties should consider the practical risk of consumer confusion. In addition to the legal requirements for registration, the parties should consider how their respective trademarks will actually be used in the marketplace and whether such use could create confusion among consumers.
Conclusion
South Korea's trademark coexistence system provides a new legal mechanism through which a later-filed trademark may, subject to statutory requirements, coexist with a prior registered trademark with the consent of the prior trademark owner.
The system gives businesses greater flexibility in addressing trademark conflicts. Rather than automatically abandoning an application or pursuing an assignment or cancellation of a prior trademark, an applicant may, where appropriate, explore an agreement with the prior trademark owner and seek registration based on that consent.
The system may be particularly useful for domestic and international businesses entering the Korean market or expanding their brands where potential conflicts with existing trademarks arise.
However, the availability and scope of the consent-based registration mechanism depend on the specific trademarks, goods and services, and other applicable requirements under the Korean Trademark Act. A legal and trademark review should therefore be conducted before entering into a coexistence agreement or filing an application based on the consent of a prior trademark owner.
KIM & CHO provides legal services to Korean and international clients in connection with Korean trademark matters, including trademark clearance and registration, prior trademark searches, trademark coexistence agreements, and trademark disputes.
Published
Robot Taekwon V vs. Mazinger Z: A Landmark Korean Copyright Decision on Character Originality and Derivative Creativity
How Korean courts protected an iconic character's independent creative expression despite acknowledged historical influences
A significant copyright dispute in the Korean content industry arose when a toy manufacturer and importer produced and sold nanoblock toys replicating the appearance of Robot Taekwon V, without obtaining authorization from the copyright owner.
The plaintiff, Robot Taekwon V Co., Ltd., which owns the copyright to the iconic Korean robot character, filed a damages action alleging infringement of both artistic and audiovisual copyrights.
The defendant argued that Robot Taekwon V itself had been heavily influenced by, and allegedly copied from, the well-known Japanese robot characters Mazinger Z and Great Mazinger, and therefore lacked the originality required for copyright protection under Korean copyright law. Based on this argument, the defendant sought to avoid liability for infringement.
Key Legal Issues and Court Findings
Both the Seoul Central District Court and the Seoul High Court rejected the defendant's arguments and ruled in favor of the copyright owner.
1. Originality Under Korean Copyright Law
Legal Principle
The courts emphasized that copyright law does not require a work to be completely novel in an absolute sense. Even if a creator draws inspiration from pre-existing works, copyright protection may arise where the final expression reflects the creator's own intellectual and creative choices.
Court's Analysis
The courts acknowledged that Robot Taekwon V was influenced by Japanese robot characters, a fact that the plaintiff itself did not dispute. Nevertheless, the courts found that the character embodied sufficient independent creative expression to qualify as an original copyrighted work.
The courts further noted that, even if elements had been derived from earlier works, the character would still constitute a protectable derivative work because of the substantial creative modifications and original expression incorporated into its design.
2. Substantial Similarity and Visual Distinctiveness
Legal Principle
When assessing copyright infringement involving fictional characters, the focus should be placed on the key visual elements that leave the strongest impression on the public.
Court's Analysis
The courts identified significant visual differences between Robot Taekwon V and Mazinger Z.
Particular emphasis was placed on the chest design. Robot Taekwon V features a distinctive, uninterrupted red “V”-shaped breastplate that forms one continuous design element. By contrast, Mazinger Z employs a divided chest structure.
The courts concluded that these visual distinctions contribute substantially to the character's independent identity and support a finding of protectable originality.
3. Cultural Identity and Character Persona
The courts also considered the broader creative identity of the character.
Robot Taekwon V was conceived around the Korean martial art of Taekwondo, incorporating its dynamic movements, national symbolism, and underlying martial values. This cultural foundation distinguishes the character from Japanese robot franchises that emerged from a different cultural and narrative context.
As a result, the courts recognized that the character possesses a unique persona and identity that extends beyond its physical appearance.
Appeal and Final Resolution
After the trial court awarded damages of approximately KRW 40 million, the defendant appealed.
In its judgment issued on May 17, 2019, the Seoul High Court fully upheld the lower court's determination that Robot Taekwon V enjoys independent copyright protection and that the defendant had committed copyright infringement.
Although the appellate court slightly adjusted the amount of damages in light of the overall circumstances, it maintained the substantive findings of infringement and copyright validity.
Neither party pursued a further appeal to the Korean Supreme Court, rendering the decision final and binding.
Practical Implications for IP Owners
This case represents an important precedent for the content, entertainment, and toy industries.
Historical Inspiration Does Not Eliminate Modern Copyright Protection
The decision confirms that allegations of historical imitation or inspiration do not grant third parties freedom to commercially exploit a character without authorization. Once a work acquires independent creative expression and establishes a separate identity, it may enjoy full copyright protection.
Protection of Derivative Creativity
The courts reaffirmed that copyright law protects not only entirely new creations but also works that build upon previous influences through meaningful creative transformation.
This ruling therefore limits the ability of infringers to justify unauthorized use by arguing that the original work itself drew inspiration from earlier creations.
Expanding Recognition of Character Rights
Notably, the courts evaluated not only visual design but also cultural identity, narrative background, and character persona. This approach suggests a broader and more sophisticated understanding of character copyright protection in modern IP jurisprudence.
Attorney Commentary
Beyond the Debate Over “Copying”: Establishing the Modern Legal Framework for Character Creativity
The Robot Taekwon V decision stands as a landmark ruling in Korean copyright law. Rather than focusing solely on whether one work was inspired by another, the courts concentrated on the concept of independent creative expression and the development of a distinct character identity.
From a practical perspective, the ruling rejects the notion of “absolute originality” and instead protects the creator's unique expressive choices. The decision acknowledges historical influences while recognizing that new creative elements, such as Robot Taekwon V's distinctive visual features and its integration of Korean cultural themes, can generate independent copyright protection.
Equally important is the court's recognition that a character is more than a visual design. Cultural identity, storytelling, and persona may all contribute to a character's protectable expression.
For businesses operating in the entertainment, licensing, merchandising, and toy sectors, this case serves as a clear reminder that even long-established characters with complex creative histories may enjoy strong intellectual property protection. The commercial exploitation of such characters without authorization cannot be justified merely by pointing to alleged influences or similarities in their historical origins.
The Robot Taekwon V decision ultimately demonstrates how localized cultural expression and creative adaptation can evolve into valuable and enforceable intellectual property rights.
