대응 Responding to copyright infringement and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Law firm Veat received a request from manufacturing company A (hereinafter referred to as "the client") to provide advice regarding the response to the opponent's claims of copyright infringement and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

The company (hereinafter referred to as "B company") that received the work and performed the work from the client claimed that the client's product sales infringed on its copyright and violated the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Law firm Veat, based on the scope and requirements of copyright law and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, considered whether the client had improperly used the idea in question, whether it was a case commonly known in the same industry, and other factors to thoroughly review whether the client had violated the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and based on this, we advised the client on appropriate responses.

Copyright Infringement

B company claimed that the idea should be protected as its copyrighted work. However, regarding whether the idea is eligible for copyright, it is not explicitly stipulated in the Copyright Act, but there are Supreme Court precedents such as “simple notions or ideas cannot be the subject of copyright protection, and only creative expressions that are concretely embodied are protected.” Based on this precedent, we reviewed whether the opponent’s claim was valid.

Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

The Unfair Competition Prevention Act aims to maintain a fair competition order by protecting technical and commercial information. Article 2, Paragraph 1, Clause (b) specifically prohibits the improper use of ideas or technical information for purposes other than those for which they were provided. B company claimed that the client had improperly used the idea received, and we reviewed whether this was valid according to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Unfair Competition Prevention Act Article 2, Paragraph 1
Acts of improperly using or providing to third parties technical or commercial ideas included in business proposals, bids, contests, or other transaction negotiations or transaction processes for the client’s or third party’s business gain in violation of the purpose for which they were provided.

Requirements for Application of Unfair Competition Prevention Act Article 2, Paragraph 1

1. Idea with Economic Value
The Unfair Competition Prevention Act does not protect all ideas, but only ideas with business and economic value. Therefore, the idea provided must be concrete and substantial information with the potential for competitiveness, rather than simply trivial or commonly known concepts.

2. Use in Violation of Purpose of Provision
It is important to determine whether the idea was used improperly, deviating from the purpose for which it was provided. For example, if a party receives an idea in good faith during a transaction process, but the recipient uses it independently or provides it to a third party to profit, it may be deemed an act of unfair competition.

3. Exception: Already Known Information
Article 2, Paragraph 1, Clause (b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act states that it does not apply when “the idea was already known at the time it was provided, or the idea was widely known in the same industry.” For example, if an idea is already widely used in the market or is information that anyone in the industry would know, it will not be recognized as an act of unfair competition.

Law firm Veat provides professional legal advice on the requirements for obtaining copyright protection, including creativity, through in-depth understanding and comprehensive approach to copyright-related matters. If you have intellectual property disputes or need legal advice regarding copyright and idea protection, please feel free to contact Law firm Veat.

Thank you.
Law firm Veat