1. Case Overview
A. The Party Represented by Barun Law
We represented SOOP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "SOOP").
B. Case Background
Soop (formerly "AfreecaTV"), which was engaged in the business of providing live-streaming platforms and online content, decided to change its corporate name from "아프리카TV" to "숲" through the internal contest process to align with its business expansion into the global market. As part of this transition, it also rebranded its service mark from "AfreecaTV" to "SOOP."
After the name change received significant media attention, Company A, which was using a name "▽" and trademark "▽" resembling "SOOP," filed an injunction against SOOP. The claims included prohibiting the use of the trademark, acts of unfair competition, and corporate name usage.
2. Judgement and Legal Basis
Seoul District Court Decision 2024Kahap20873, dated October 24, 2024.
The court dismissed Company A's injunction request, ruling that the services provided by SOOP and Company A differ significantly in nature, content, and delivery methods, their target customers and transaction parties are also distinct, and thus, the use of "SOOP", which is allegedly similar to "▽", by SOOP does not lead to confusion regarding the business origin among general consumers or traders.
Based on these findings, the court rejected all of Company A' claims, including those for trademark infringement, acts of unfair competition, and corporate name usage.
3. Our Arguments and Role
Although SOOP's new corporate name and service mark "SOOP" bore some resemblance to Company A's trademark "▽", we developed the litigation strategy emphasizing that the services provided by SOOP and Company A cater to clearly different consumer groups, making confusion about the business origin unlikely. We also presented various precedents and evidence to demonstrate that confusion among general consumers or traders was improbable.
With our efforts, SOOP was able to dispel legal uncertainties and proceed with its global expansion, including its name and service mark changes.
4. Significance of the Ruling
This ruling serves as an important precedent in determining trademark infringement and unfair competition. It reinforces the principle that the likelihood of confusion regarding business origin should be assessed from the perspective of general consumers or traders, providing legal clarity in similar disputes.
- Attorneys involved: Lee Eung-se, Ahn Youn-woo and Kim Tae-sang
