K&P Law Firm - International Law Firm in Incheon, South Korea

 [1] Even if an act of posting a link to a posting, infringing on the right of public transmission, a web page, on which the posting is located, etc. (hereinafter “infringing posting, etc.”) is committed, the infringement on the right of interactive transmission is not constituted as such act does not correspond to “interactive transmission (public transmission),” which is a constituent element of an act of infringing on the right of interactive transmission (the right of public transmission), which is the established precedent of the Supreme Court. A link merely refers to the data regarding the location, or a route, of an individual work, etc. stored on a server of a web page, website, etc. connected by such link on the Internet.  Even if an Internet user is directly connected to the infringing posting, etc. by clicking on the link, the principal agent, transmitting the data which is subject to such connection, is a person, who provides the data to make the data available for...

 (A) The Trademark Act provides that in a case where one intellectual property (IP) right is in conflict with other IP right, the first-to-file right, or the earlier created right, is given priority over the other, and it is reasonable to assume that such rule invariably applies to a trademark conflict. Therefore, in a case where a trademark owner filed an application for registration of a trademark similar or identical to a prior applied and registered trademark before the filing date of the said trademark owner’s application for trademark registration (hereinafter “subsequent registered trademark”) and used the subsequent registered trademark, without authorization of the owner of a prior mark, on goods similar or identical to designated goods of the prior registered mark, an exclusive right to the use of the subsequent registered trademark is no longer exercisable, and an infringement on the prior registered mark is established without regard to whether a trial ruling that inval...

We provide an English legal service for foreign clients. Please visit our website: www.kimnpark.com/eng email: info@kimnpark.com Tel. +82 32 864 8300

Supreme Court Decision 200153349 Decided March 25, 2004 [Damages] For an agreement of exclusive international jurisdiction to be valid when it designates the foreign court as the court of competent jurisdiction while excluding jurisdiction of a Korean court, the case in question must not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a Korean court, and the designated foreign court must possess jurisdiction over the case under the foreign law; in addition, the case in question must bear reasonable relevance to the foreign court. Except cases where the agreement for exclusive jurisdiction is obviously unreasonable and unfair to the extent of constituting a juristic act contrary to public order and good morals, the agreement of jurisdiction is valid.

Foreign investors require reassurance that the companies in which they are making investments are well managed, the invested funds are being deployed strategically, and the management team and board of directors are behaving in an ethical and legal manner. We perform comprehensive monitoring activities on behalf of foreign investors that include the following services:  Ensuring the terms and conditions of the investment or joint venture agreement are being upheld.  Verifying how funds are being invested. Ensuring the CEO, management team, and members of the board are complying with legal and ethical requirements. If we detect any misdemeanors or discover any evidence of malpractice, we will notify investors of our findings and immediately take some or all of the actions outlined below to protect foreign investors. Request access to the company ’ s financial accounts for auditing purposes. Demand that a shareholders ’ meeting is arranged and that any...

We provide foreign-funded enterprises with a range of legal services. It often arises that a foreign-funded enterprise must clarify legal issues for foreign investors. We provide clear explanations of South Korea’s legal regime as it relates to foreign investment and advise on the action required from investors. In addition, we have a wealth of experience providing advice to investors from the US, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia on policy and its implementation. Our role in criminal and civil litigation is to act as an effective channel of communication between foreign-funded enterprises and foreign investors. To achieve this, we explain the legal issues in play and the support that investors should be seeking and also provide our assessment of the likely outcome of the case. Taejin Kim, partner attorney at K&P Law Firm taejin.kim@kimnpark.com Please visit our   homepage   : Click