Atlas Legal published detailed commentary on the legal framework governing parallel imports in South Korea and the enforcement options available to exclusive importers and authorized distributors when parallel importers engage in unlawful conduct during the sales process.
Overview: Parallel Imports Are Legal — But Sales Conduct Is Not Always
South Korean courts have long held that parallel imports of genuine goods do not infringe trademark rights (Supreme Court Decision 99Da42322, September 24, 2002). However, the law distinguishes sharply between the act of importing and the manner of selling. Brand trademark misuse on storefront signage, unauthorized reproduction of advertising photographs, and self-affixing of trademarks on unbranded goods are all actionable under separate legal theories. Exclusive importers may pursue enforcement remedies under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Copyright Act, and the Trademark Act simultaneously.
Business Identity Confusion Under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
Using a brand trademark on exterior storefront signage or staff business cards in a manner that leads consumers to mistake a parallel importer’s shop for an authorized dealer constitutes business identity confusion under Article 2, Subparagraph 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The Supreme Court’s leading decision on this point (99Da42322) established that exterior signage and business cards cross the line into actionable conduct, while interior displays, packaging, and advertising materials generally do not. Exclusive importers — even without trademark ownership — may seek an injunction and compulsory destruction of the offending materials, provided they can show a threat to their business interests.
Trademark Infringement: Three Types That Expose Parallel Importers to Criminal Liability
Parallel importing loses its legal protection in three circumstances. First, importing goods that bear no trademark and then self-affixing one constitutes trademark infringement regardless of whether the underlying product is genuine — Korean courts have imposed custodial sentences for this conduct (Incheon District Court 2016GoDan7215, ten months’ imprisonment). Second, where the foreign and domestic trademark owners lack a legal or economic relationship, the import itself may infringe the Korean mark (Incheon District Court 2017No938, KRW 5 million fine). Third, importers who claim goods are genuine but cannot establish that fact face conviction if the goods turn out to be counterfeit (Busan District Court 2019GoDan3346).
Copyright Protection for Advertising Photography and Creative Materials
Professionally staged advertising photographs, promotional videos, and original copy created by exclusive importers qualify as copyrightable works under South Korean law, provided they reflect individual creative choices in framing, lighting, angle, and composition (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44542). A parallel importer who reproduces such materials on Korean marketplace platforms without authorization may face criminal prosecution for copyright infringement. By contrast, product instruction manual photographs — taken purely to convey usage information — have been held not to qualify as copyrightable works (Daejeon District Court 2014No3555). Even where copyright protection is unavailable, a civil tort claim under the Civil Act may still be available to the exclusive importer.
Four Practical Enforcement Steps
The fastest remedy is a cease-and-desist notice to online marketplace operators such as Coupang, G-market, and 11st (11번가), citing copyright infringement of advertising materials — platforms routinely suspend listings within days. A criminal complaint for copyright infringement follows, typically resolving through criminal conciliation with the parallel importer agreeing to cease all use of the exclusive importer’s materials. Civil action under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act can compel signage removal and destruction. Criminal complaints under the Trademark Act are appropriate where self-affixing or counterfeiting is involved, and carry the risk of imprisonment. Atlas Legal has handled each of these enforcement steps on behalf of exclusive importer clients in South Korea.
Atlas Legal’s Practice in This Area
Atlas Legal advises foreign brand owners, exclusive distributors, and authorized importers on IP enforcement, unfair competition, and corporate criminal defense in South Korea. Our attorneys bring prior prosecutorial experience and deep familiarity with Korean trademark and copyright litigation to each engagement. For clients facing parallel importer disputes, we develop enforcement strategies combining platform-level takedown actions with longer-term legal pressure — tailored to the specific misconduct at issue and the client’s commercial priorities.
Click here for the full legal guide
How to Stop Parallel Importers in South Korea: Legal Enforcement Guide
Atlas Legal published detailed commentary on the legal framework governing parallel imports in South Korea and the enforcement options available to exclusive importers and authorized distributors when parallel importers engage in unlawful conduct during the sales process.
Overview: Parallel Imports Are Legal — But Sales Conduct Is Not Always
South Korean courts have long held that parallel imports of genuine goods do not infringe trademark rights (Supreme Court Decision 99Da42322, September 24, 2002). However, the law distinguishes sharply between the act of importing and the manner of selling. Brand trademark misuse on storefront signage, unauthorized reproduction of advertising photographs, and self-affixing of trademarks on unbranded goods are all actionable under separate legal theories. Exclusive importers may pursue enforcement remedies under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Copyright Act, and the Trademark Act simultaneously.
Business Identity Confusion Under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
Using a brand trademark on exterior storefront signage or staff business cards in a manner that leads consumers to mistake a parallel importer’s shop for an authorized dealer constitutes business identity confusion under Article 2, Subparagraph 1(b) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The Supreme Court’s leading decision on this point (99Da42322) established that exterior signage and business cards cross the line into actionable conduct, while interior displays, packaging, and advertising materials generally do not. Exclusive importers — even without trademark ownership — may seek an injunction and compulsory destruction of the offending materials, provided they can show a threat to their business interests.
Trademark Infringement: Three Types That Expose Parallel Importers to Criminal Liability
Parallel importing loses its legal protection in three circumstances. First, importing goods that bear no trademark and then self-affixing one constitutes trademark infringement regardless of whether the underlying product is genuine — Korean courts have imposed custodial sentences for this conduct (Incheon District Court 2016GoDan7215, ten months’ imprisonment). Second, where the foreign and domestic trademark owners lack a legal or economic relationship, the import itself may infringe the Korean mark (Incheon District Court 2017No938, KRW 5 million fine). Third, importers who claim goods are genuine but cannot establish that fact face conviction if the goods turn out to be counterfeit (Busan District Court 2019GoDan3346).
Copyright Protection for Advertising Photography and Creative Materials
Professionally staged advertising photographs, promotional videos, and original copy created by exclusive importers qualify as copyrightable works under South Korean law, provided they reflect individual creative choices in framing, lighting, angle, and composition (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44542). A parallel importer who reproduces such materials on Korean marketplace platforms without authorization may face criminal prosecution for copyright infringement. By contrast, product instruction manual photographs — taken purely to convey usage information — have been held not to qualify as copyrightable works (Daejeon District Court 2014No3555). Even where copyright protection is unavailable, a civil tort claim under the Civil Act may still be available to the exclusive importer.
Four Practical Enforcement Steps
The fastest remedy is a cease-and-desist notice to online marketplace operators such as Coupang, G-market, and 11st (11번가), citing copyright infringement of advertising materials — platforms routinely suspend listings within days. A criminal complaint for copyright infringement follows, typically resolving through criminal conciliation with the parallel importer agreeing to cease all use of the exclusive importer’s materials. Civil action under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act can compel signage removal and destruction. Criminal complaints under the Trademark Act are appropriate where self-affixing or counterfeiting is involved, and carry the risk of imprisonment. Atlas Legal has handled each of these enforcement steps on behalf of exclusive importer clients in South Korea.
Atlas Legal’s Practice in This Area
Atlas Legal advises foreign brand owners, exclusive distributors, and authorized importers on IP enforcement, unfair competition, and corporate criminal defense in South Korea. Our attorneys bring prior prosecutorial experience and deep familiarity with Korean trademark and copyright litigation to each engagement. For clients facing parallel importer disputes, we develop enforcement strategies combining platform-level takedown actions with longer-term legal pressure — tailored to the specific misconduct at issue and the client’s commercial priorities.
Click here for the full legal guide