How to Stop Parallel Importers in South Korea: Legal Guide
Table of Contents
- 1. What Legal Options Does an Exclusive Importer Have Against Parallel Importers in South Korea?
- 2. When Does a Parallel Importer’s Use of a Brand Trademark Become Illegal in South Korea?
- 3. When Does Parallel Importing Itself Become Trademark Infringement Under South Korean Law?
- 4. Can Advertising Photos and Product Images Be Protected Against Parallel Importers in South Korea?
- 5. How Do Exclusive Importers in South Korea Enforce Their Rights in Practice?
- 6. FAQ
Case scenario: A foreign brand’s exclusive importer in South Korea had invested heavily in building brand recognition — advertising campaigns, a showroom, an after-sales service network. Then a parallel importer appeared on Coupang, using the same product photos and displaying the brand name on storefront signage as if it were an authorized dealer. Could anything be done about it?
The line between lawful parallel importing and unlawful conduct in South Korea
※ The following is based on actual cases handled by our firm, with client details anonymized to protect confidentiality.
In one matter, our client — an exclusive importer of a consumer product brand — discovered that a parallel importer had copied its professionally produced product photography verbatim and posted it across multiple Korean online marketplaces. Working with Atlas Legal, the client pursued two parallel strategies. First, cease-and-desist notices were sent to the marketplace platforms, citing copyright infringement. The platforms removed the infringing listings within days. Second, a criminal complaint for copyright infringement was filed, and the matter was resolved through a criminal conciliation process in which the parallel importer agreed to cease using all of our client’s advertising materials. The key insight from this experience: parallel importing may be lawful, but the conduct surrounding the sale often is not.
South Korea has a significant community of foreign-invested companies and multinational brand owners operating through authorized exclusive importers or distributors. This article is intended to help brand owners, exclusive distributors, and foreign legal teams understand the legal framework governing parallel imports under South Korean law, and the practical enforcement tools available when parallel importers cross the legal line.
1. What Legal Options Does an Exclusive Importer Have Against Parallel Importers in South Korea?
South Korean law distinguishes sharply between the act of parallel importing — which is lawful — and the conduct that surrounds the sale of parallel-imported goods, which may not be. Four distinct legal tools are available to exclusive importers.
Overview of enforcement tools
| Legal Tool | Statutory Basis | Target Conduct | Typical Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cease-and-desist to online marketplace | Copyright Act | Unauthorized use of advertising photos/videos | Days to weeks |
| Criminal complaint (copyright) | Copyright Act Art. 136(1) | Unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted advertising materials | Several months |
| Civil injunction and damages | Unfair Competition Prevention Act Art. 2(1)(b) | Business identity confusion via trademark use on signage/business cards | 1 year or more |
| Criminal complaint (trademark) | Trademark Act Art. 230 | Self-affixing trademarks, importing counterfeits | Several months to 1 year |
The right combination depends on the specific misconduct involved. In practice, the cease-and-desist approach targeting online marketplaces is often the fastest and most cost-effective first step, while criminal complaints create pressure for negotiated resolution.
2. When Does a Parallel Importer’s Use of a Brand Trademark Become Illegal in South Korea?
Even if a parallel importer is selling genuine goods, using the brand’s trademark in a way that causes consumers to believe the shop is an authorized dealer constitutes an act of business identity confusion under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act — regardless of whether trademark infringement is separately established.
The leading case: Supreme Court Decision 99Da42322 (September 24, 2002)
This case involved BURBERRYS-branded products. The parallel importer sold genuine goods but also used the brand’s trademarks on exterior signs, interior displays, packaging, shopping bags, and staff business cards. Both the Seoul District Court (97GaHap32678, May 29, 1998) and ultimately the Supreme Court addressed where the line falls.
| Use of Brand Trademark | Permissible? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Exterior storefront signage | No — business identity confusion | Functions as a business mark; consumers likely to mistake shop for authorized dealer |
| Staff business cards | No — business identity confusion | Recipients may assume holder is affiliated with the foreign brand or its official agent |
| Interior display signage | Yes — permitted | Minimal standalone business-mark function; helps customers locate merchandise |
| Packaging and shopping bags | Yes — permitted | Provided free with purchase; not functioning as a business mark |
| Advertising materials and magazine ads | Yes — permitted (unless framed as authorized dealer) | Advertising genuine goods is inherent to their sale; permissible if not misleading as to dealer status |
The “multi-brand shop” distinction — Busan District Court Decisions 2012GoJeong6234 and 2013No1985
These decisions involved a parallel importer selling Nike, Adidas, and Reebok products in a multi-brand shop. The court acquitted the defendant on both trademark and unfair competition charges, noting three key facts: the Nike mark on the entrance banner appeared only in small print alongside multiple other brand names; interior signage was modest in size and accompanied by other brands at similar scale; and the staff business card displayed the shop’s own name prominently, with Nike listed in small type alongside Reebok and Converse.
The acquittals confirm that the analysis is highly fact-specific. A parallel importer displaying a single brand’s trademark alone, prominently, in a format indistinguishable from that brand’s own authorized retail presence would face a very different outcome.
3. When Does Parallel Importing Itself Become Trademark Infringement Under South Korean Law?
Parallel importing is presumed lawful, but three cumulative conditions must be satisfied. Failure to meet any one of them transforms the import into trademark infringement.
The three-condition test (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do790, May 27, 2010)
The Supreme Court established in this K·SWISS slippers case that a parallel import does not infringe the domestic trademark only if all of the following are met.
| Condition | Content |
|---|---|
| ① Legitimate trademark affixation | The foreign trademark owner or a legitimate licensee affixed the trademark to the imported goods |
| ② Same-source requirement | The foreign trademark owner and the South Korean registered trademark owner share a legal or economic relationship, or the imported goods otherwise indicate the same source as the domestically registered mark |
| ③ No material quality difference | There is no material quality difference between the imported goods and those sold by the South Korean trademark holder |
Type 1: Self-affixing a trademark on goods that arrived without one
Incheon District Court Decision 2016GoDan7215 (October 19, 2017) sentenced a defendant to ten months’ imprisonment for importing LLumar-branded automotive window film that bore no trademark on the film itself, then using a marking machine to print the trademark onto the film and packaging before sale. The court held that parallel import protection applies only where the trademark was affixed by the rights holder — not where the importer creates the trademark impression itself. Suwon District Court Decision 2015GoDan3230 (November 12, 2015) reached the same conclusion, adding a customs fraud charge, and imposed a one-year suspended sentence.
Type 2: No legal or economic relationship between foreign and domestic trademark owners
Incheon District Court Decision 2017No938 (August 10, 2017) convicted a defendant who imported furniture bearing a Taiwanese manufacturer’s trademark via a Russian intermediary. The domestic trademark owner — a Korean company — had independently developed product designs, built its own distribution network, and conducted extensive advertising, establishing itself as a distinct source. The Taiwanese manufacturer had itself confirmed in writing that the two companies were independent legal entities and that their supply agreement was purely an OEM/ODM arrangement unrelated to trademark rights. The Seoul High Court (2016Ra20468) had already granted a trademark infringement injunction on the same facts, affirmed by the Supreme Court (2016Ma5884) in February 2017, which weighed heavily in the criminal conviction.
Type 3: Importing counterfeit goods
Where the goods are not genuine at all, no parallel import defense is available. Busan District Court Decision 2019GoDan3346 (October 14, 2019) convicted defendants who imported what turned out to be counterfeit bearings — despite their claim that they believed the goods were genuine parallel imports. The court rejected the defense on two grounds: the evidence (expert reports) established the goods were fake, and even if the defendants had genuinely believed otherwise, they had taken no steps — such as seeking legal advice — to verify the position before importing.
4. Can Advertising Photos and Product Images Be Protected Against Parallel Importers in South Korea?
Yes — but the protection depends on whether the images in question qualify as copyrightable works under South Korean law. The analysis turns on whether the photographs reflect the photographer’s individual creativity, not merely technical competence.
When advertising photos are protected: Incheon District Court Decision 2017No938
In the same case discussed above, the defendant also copied four product photographs directly from the Taiwanese manufacturer’s website and posted them on Korean online shopping platforms to advertise the imported furniture. The court found these photographs were owned by the domestic trademark holder and that reproducing them without authorization constituted copyright infringement. The copyright and trademark convictions were treated as concurrent offenses, resulting in a combined fine of KRW 5 million.
When product photos are not protected: Daejeon District Court Decision 2014No3555 (June 18, 2015)
A parallel importer of a depilatory product scanned five photographs from the product’s instruction manual and posted them on Korean online marketplaces. The court acquitted the defendant on copyright grounds, finding that instruction manual photographs — whose sole purpose is to demonstrate product use clearly and accurately — lack the originality required for copyright protection. The court reasoned that anyone tasked with photographing the same subject would produce an essentially identical result, leaving no room for individual creative expression.
South Korean copyright law requires, for photographic works, that the photographer’s individuality and creativity be evident in choices such as subject selection, framing, lighting direction and intensity, camera angle, shutter speed, timing, and development or processing (Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da44542, December 23, 2010; 2005Do3130, December 8, 2006; 98Da43366, May 8, 2001). The distinction that matters in practice: product-use instruction images taken to convey information faithfully will generally not qualify, while professionally staged advertising images created to build brand image almost always will.
Civil remedy when copyright protection is unavailable
Even where an advertising image does not meet the copyright originality threshold, reproducing it without authorization may still give rise to a civil tort claim under the Civil Act. An injunction and damages action can be pursued on the basis that the exclusive importer’s investment in creating and deploying the advertising material is a legally protected interest.
5. How Do Exclusive Importers in South Korea Enforce Their Rights in Practice?
The following is a practical overview of the four main enforcement steps, drawn from cases handled at our firm.
Step 1: Cease-and-desist to online marketplace platforms
Where a parallel importer is selling through Coupang, G-market, or 11st (11번가), a cease-and-desist notice to the platform operator citing copyright infringement of advertising photographs is typically the fastest remedy. Korean marketplace platforms routinely suspend listings that are the subject of a credible copyright claim while the complaint is under review. This approach does not require litigation and can produce results within days.
In one case handled by our office, this method caused the infringing listings to be suspended before the parallel importer could react, significantly reducing their sales window during the peak season.
Step 2: Criminal complaint for copyright infringement
Where the parallel importer has reproduced creative advertising materials — professional photography, promotional videos, or original copy — a criminal complaint for copyright infringement creates meaningful pressure for a negotiated resolution. In our experience, most such cases are resolved through the criminal conciliation process, with the parallel importer agreeing to cease all use of the exclusive importer’s materials as a condition of settlement.
Step 3: Civil action under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
Where a parallel importer is using the brand’s trademark on exterior signage or business cards in a way that makes their operation appear to be an authorized outlet, a civil injunction action under Article 2, Subparagraph 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act can compel removal and destruction of the infringing materials. This remedy is available to the exclusive importer even without trademark ownership, provided the exclusive importer can demonstrate that the conduct threatens its business interests.
Step 4: Criminal complaint under the Trademark Act
Where a parallel importer has self-affixed trademarks on goods that arrived without them, or has imported counterfeits, a criminal complaint under Article 230 of the Trademark Act is appropriate. Korean courts have imposed custodial sentences in such cases — not merely fines — making this a serious deterrent.
6. FAQ
Enforcement strategy against parallel importers in South Korea requires careful analysis of the specific conduct involved. The legal tools available — from marketplace takedown notices to criminal complaints — each serve different purposes and operate on different timescales. An approach combining immediate platform-level action with longer-term legal pressure tends to be most effective.
※ The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable law and its interpretation may vary depending on the specific facts of each case. Please consult a qualified Korean attorney before taking any legal action.