Burberry & LG Fashion, lawsuit on check pattern trademark infringement is finally over!

The so-called ‘checked pattern suit’ between Burberry and LG Fashion is over. 

Seoul Central District Court ended this suit by ruling a compulsory mediation decision.

Last February, Burberry filed a lawsuit against LG Fashion claiming that LG Fashion should not make and sell any shirts pirating Burberry's checked-pattern. Furthermore, Burberry claimed that LG Fashion should pay fifty million KRW as a compensation.

Against this, LG Fashion also considered to file a counter-suit claiming that 

the checked pattern is one of the most popular patterns, 

thus Burberry interrupted their business. 

According to this ruling, LG Fashion paid  Burberry thirty billion won. 

Besides, it became forbidden for LG Fashion to use 

'Burberry's checked pattern trademark rights’ now and for ever.

Based on a compulsory mediation ruling by Central District Court, 

not only LG Fashion should pay thirty million KRW to Burberry, 

but also Burberry should give up the rest of claims as well. 

This is quite interesting point.

LG Fashion seemed to be focusing on the part that Burberry should give up the rest of claims. Burberry did not file any objection on this ruling, 

and gave up requesting prohibition of sales on LG Fashion shirts. 

Also, LG Fashion did not admit that they infringed Burberry's trademark rights.

On the other hand, Burberry interpreted that the meaning of ruling is already a proof of Court acknowledging trademark infringement of LG Fashion.

  

However, industry people regard this lawsuit result as a victory of Burberry. 

The reason is, even though the mediation ruled that 'Burberry should give up the rest of claims' but it does not mean that ‘Burberry should give up rights.’ 

or ‘LG Fashion can use the checked-pattern.’ 

Actually LG Fashion already stopped producing problematic pattern shirts, and this seems to be the reason why Burberry gave up easily requesting prohibition of sale.

<above is Burberry related trademark search result at Kipris.co.kr.>

The reason Burberry's checked pattern can be registered as trademark 

not design is that pattern itself could be recognized as Burberry'. 

As it is trademark, Burberry can keep their rights by renewing it every 10 years.

If other products using similar pattern with Burberry's appear in the future, 

they can claim infringement of trademark again.

Burberry and LG Fashion are taking different stances on this suit result. 

Even though the lawsuit is over, tension between them seems to continue.

Twitter, won a suit against Korean domain!

A person from Korea having a domain ‘www.twitter.co.kr’ lost a suit

 against American Twitter ‘www.twitter.com.’ 

Originally, the suit was filed by Mr.A from Korea 

who protested against a decision about a domain’s cancellation.

Last year, Mr.A received a decision from the Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee that he should cancel the domain.

In this regard, he said that the relevant site is a travel-associated site. 

In a result, it did not interrupt any SNS activities of American Twitter. 

Also, he claimed that it cannot be a violation of American Twitter’s rights because his domain was registered in 2008 while American Twitter was given a registration of service mark by the Patent and Trademark Office in 2009.

Because of these reasons, he filed a lawsuit against the decision of cancellation.

However, Seoul Central District Court assumed that he would benefit from the domain. In 2009 when American Twitter received a registration of service mark,

it is estimated that he has already about 3180 domains.

At that time, he had to change other domains from WIPO 

as he did not have a right to use those domains.

Department of justice judged that the domain ‘www.twitter.co.kr’ can get profit from people searching for Twitter. The moment Mr.A registered this domain as a service mark, Twitter was worldwide SNS. Therefore, it was inevitable that he recognized Twitter. 

As a consequence, Department of justice made a decision that 

American Twitter has a right to claim the cancellation of the domain.

<above is from 'kipris.or.kr', trademark search result related to Twitter> 

Furthermore, even though ‘www.twitter.co.kr’ seems to be a travel-related site, 

it is just a copy of other travel agency’s site. 

Also, it does not have a corporate registration number and secured payment number. Additionally, there is no evidence if any actual business.

For these reasons, the Court decided that Mr.A cannot have a right to have a domain.

There is no exaggeration that an individual’s right, especially when it comes to a possessive right, should be assured. Nonetheless, if it harms others’ rights, 

there is no guarantee even for possessive rights.