SEUM, representing a leading manufacturer and seller of cosmetics (the “Client”), successfully obtained an injunction against an imitation producer (the “Defendant”) ordering such producer to cease and desist from selling its imitation products.

The Client sought SEUM’s legal services after discovering that certain cosmetics were being distributed overseas that had the same container design of one of its popular products. SEUM was able to confirm the Defendant as the Korean company that was exporting such products and filed an injunction requesting an order for the Defendant to cease and desist from manufacturing and exporting such imitation products. SEUM successfully obtained the injunction and the Defendant was prohibited from exporting its imitation products.

During the proceedings, SEUM argued that the manufacture and export of the imitation products constituted a violation of Article 2(1)(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the “Act”) as an act of unfair competition, which prohibits the transfer, lending, or exhibition for the purpose of transfer or lending, import, or export, of goods with a form that has been copied from goods manufactured by another person. Despite the Defendant’s arguments that its products were not similar, and that its products were merely imitations of common forms of cosmetic products, the court accepted all of SEUM’s arguments and ordered prohibition of any manufacture or export of any of the imitation products.

Article 2(1)(i) of the Act was newly promulgated to sanction so-called “copy products”, in which a plaintiff is not required to prove that the relevant design was registered, whether such registration is effective, or whether the relevant form is widely known. The court’s judgment was meaningful in that it reflected the purpose of Article 2(1)(i) of the Act to swiftly restrict the distribution of imitation products. 

The SEUM team was comprised of partner Byungil Lee.