"Representing cosmetics manufacturer A (defendant) in a lawsuit for the prevention of unfair competition, achieving a complete victory."

Company B (Plaintiff), which manufactures and sells cosmetics, filed a lawsuit requesting a sales ban based on violation of Article 2(1)(a)(i), (d), and (e) of the ‘Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Unfair Competition Prevention Act’), and Trade Dress, claiming that A Company (Defendant)’s trademark, container, packaging, etc., are similar to its own trademark, etc.

Law firm Veat (responsible attorneys Song Do-young, Choi Seong-ho) analyzed various aspects from immediately after consulting with A Company regarding whether (1) the trademark, container, packaging, etc., claimed by B Company possessed well-known and famous status domestically, (2) whether there was a possibility of confusion, and (3) whether applying Article 2(1)(e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act was appropriate in this case.

Based on Law firm Veat’s accumulated know-how regarding unfair competition prevention, and considering Supreme Court and Patent Court decisions, advisory and dispute mediation cases, etc., it concluded that B Company’s trademark, etc., did not possess domestic well-known and famous status, there was no possibility of confusion, and Article 2(1)(e) should not be applied in this case. It systematically organized and presented relevant records, decisions, and academic materials to argue and prove this point. In particular, Law firm Veat analyzed Supreme Court and lower court decisions to summarize and present the criteria for judging trademark confusion, and argued and proved that the plan submitted by B Company was merely a simple plan with no specific sales amounts listed, and that sales were extremely small based on statistical data regarding the domestic cosmetics sales volume. Furthermore, B Company directly submitted photos of stores it had withdrawn from in Korea, endeavoring to argue and prove in various ways.

Accordingly, the court accepted all the content argued by Law firm Veat and issued a judgment rejecting the plaintiff's claim. * Currently, B Company has filed an invalidation petition with the Korean Intellectual Property Office against A Company, and we will strive to achieve good results in the invalidation petition based on this judgment.