JIPYONG LLC

Jipyong News|News

Jipyong Successfully Represented Aekyung In Trademark Right Infringement And Damage Compensation Claims Related To “Pumping Toothpaste” In LG Household & Healthcare V. Aekyung

2020.05.08

Jipyong’s IT and Technology Team advised Aekyung Industrial Co.., Ltd., in a brand and design dispute between LG Household & Healthcare (the maker of Perio toothpaste) and Aekyung (the maker of 2080 toothpaste), which are the No. 1 and No. 2 companies in the toothpaste market, and secured a complete victory by obtaining a non-suspicion decision.


On behalf of Aekyung, Jipyong achieved a victory in all of the trademark right infringement and damage compensation claims related to the trademark of “Pumping Toothpaste”.


In this case, LG Household & Healthcare filed a lawsuit against Aekyung, alleging that Aekyung infringed upon LG’s trademark rights by using the word “pumping” in the how-to-use section of its newly-released ‘pumping’ toothpaste. The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board found that LG has exclusively used the word ‘pumping’ for a long time and thus LG can monopolize ‘pumping’ as a trademark and held a decision allowing its trademark registration. However, in the civil proceeding before the Seoul Central District Court, Jipyong’s IP and Technology Team (i) pointed out the logical defects and discrepancies in the argument of the ‘implicit sign of the other party’ or the ‘acquisition of power of discernment by using the term’ and the decision of the Korea Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board; and (ii) produced new evidence related to the state of usage of the term by 7 to 8 toothpaste brands in Korea and foreign countries, the trade circumstances for toothpaste products in Korea and foreign countries, and the linguistic habits of general consumers. As a result, Jipyong obtained a decision that the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling was wrong, successfully defending LG’s trademark right infringement claim.


This dispute gained lots of traction from the market insiders as it was an intellectual property dispute related to the newly released products of No. 1 and No. 2 companies in the household supplies industry. Besides, it is very rare to rebut the decision of the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board and the patent advisor’s legal opinion. In this regard, the victory in this dispute is highly meaningful.

Back to List

Related Practices

IP Litigation

Related Practices

Professionals

SHARE

Disclaimer

Limited Liabilities