Applicants for patents, utility models, industrial designs and trademarks will be permitted to present necessary documents online. Officials at the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) said it has officially launched KIPOnet, its online information network, through which applicants can apply for patents and other industrial property rights (IPR) using their computers. The Internet address is http://kiponet.kipo.go.kr.

 

To use the service, applicants must obtain an ID number, application form software and security keys, which are free from the office. The system will also speed up the patent examination process by about 20 percent.

 

KIPO has realized an online patent application and screening system for the second time in the world, following Japan. "However, Korea is essentially the first in the world because unlike Japan, which allows online applications only through special lines, KIPO allows connections via any public and phone lines," said a KIPO spokesman.

 

To prevent KIPOnet from possible hacking and undue modifications, the spokesman said it consists of two separate systems, one for only applications and the other for screening. He said KIPOnet will also be completely interoperable with WIPOnet, a network to be built by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), since the Korean system adopts WIPO's standard generalized markup language (SGML).

 

WIPO plans to establish a global information network for intellectual property offices to foster the exchange and transmission of IPR-related data among member countries in the first half of 2000. Once WIPOnet is established Korean applicants will be able to apply for international patents online, the spokesman said.

 

KIPO also plans to spend 97.8 billion won ($80.5 million) over the next three years to expand its patent-related information service, currently being offered through the web site, www.kipris.or.kr.

 

To encourage inventors and venture technology entrepreneurs, the Office said it will allow access to KIPO's information service system free of charge beginning January 2000.

 

Another key project includes the establishment of a digital library, which will allow more efficient ways to disseminate intellectual property information. The digital library will eventually be linked to WIPO's database for online exchange and transmission of data among member countries, KIPO said.

                                                                                 BOBBI
At the first stage, the KIPO finally rejected a mark "BROWN"
                                                                                 essential
filed in the field of cosmetics, soaps, toothpastes, etc. on the ground that it was similar to prior marks "BOBBI", "FUNKY BROWN" and "BRAUN". Accordingly, an applicant of the rejected mark appealed against the above final rejection, while the KIPO affirmed via the decision on appeal the above final rejection as being reasonable on the following grounds:

 

1. When the subject mark is compared with the cited marks, the term "essential" given underneath the subject mark is disregarded as an indistinctive name related to characters of the designated goods and
BOBBI
"BROWN" which is layed out in parallel as principal element can be read only as "BOBBI" and "BROWN".

 

2. While the applicant asserts that "BOBBI BROWN" is derived from the full name of a famous make-up artist in U.S., it is still hard to believe that "BOBBI BROWN" will be accepted by Korean consumers as an artist's name. There is a high probability for the mark to be read only "BOBBI" or "BROWN" regardless of parallel disposition. Given that, it is possibly confused with prior marks, "BOBBI" and "FUNKY BROWN" and "BRAUN".

 

However, after the above decision by the KIPO, it has been upset by the Korea Patent Court. Considering that all evidences of use relate to the shape of "BOBBI BROWN" according to the decision by the Korea Patent Court, it seems that consumers will accept the subject mark only as "BOBBI BROWN", not by as "BOBBI" or "BROWN". Therefore, the subject mark can be easily distinguished from the cited marks. (Case No. 98 Hur 1099 dated June 11, 1998)

 

It is understood that the above decision is based on one of precedents in the Korea Supreme Court that "LAURA ASHLEY" is not similar to "ASHLEY" in light of the world-wide reputation of "LAURA ASHLEY". (Case No. 94 Hur 647 dated January 5, 1995)

 

In the meantime, there have been many precedents in the Korea Supreme Court so far that do not concur with the above decision. For example, marks composed of individual names such as "ARTHUR DIXON", "HARRY WINSTON" "RICKY LAURA" were decided as being similar to someone elses' marks, "DICKSON", "WINSTON", "Mrs. LAURA", respectively.

 

Conclusively, from now on, the above decision for "BOBBI BROWN" will be a good precedent in a trademark application or dispute in which a mark composed of two words, namely initial name and surname, is involved once there are sufficient evidences of use supporting a world-wide reputation of the mark or the fact that the mark is always used as a full name.