Company representative accused of patent and trademark theft... Police refuse to forward the case, saying it is not subject to criminal punishment

Domestic rights company for overseas products, “The structure is the same and the trademark is used without permission… Exclusive rights are infringed”
Police: “Indirect infringement is not subject to criminal punishment…There is no concern about consumer confusion.”

The CEO of a distribution company who was accused of misappropriating patent rights and selling counterfeit products was cleared of the charges.

Gimpo Police Station announced on the 26th that it had decided not to forward the case to Mr. A, the owner of a distribution company who was booked on charges of violating the trademark law.

Mr. A was accused of selling counterfeit products in 2025 by using registered trademarks and patent rights without the permission of Company B, a company that holds domestic patents and trademark rights for overseas products.

Company B claimed that Mr. A's product was substantially the same as its own product, and that its brand name was written in the product name and advertising text without permission during the online sales process.

Mr. A completely denied the charges. He refuted that the product does not fall under the scope of patent rights because the way it operates is different, and that it only used its own officially registered trademark during the sales process and never stole the other brand.

The police decided not to forward the case and said, "Although the structure of the suspect's product and Company B's patented product are similar, there are some differences."

He continued, "Even if this fact constitutes 'indirect infringement' as defined in Article 127, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Act, it is not subject to criminal punishment because it is not intended to stipulate the structural requirements of the criminal law that punishes infringement of patent rights."

Regarding the charge of violating the trademark law, he added, "All of the suspect products bear trademarks registered by the suspect," and added, "There is insufficient objective evidence to suggest that consumers may confuse the suspect's products with foreign products."

Attorney Cho Min-woo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "Article 127 of the Patent Act is a regulation intended to protect patent holders by imposing civil liability on indirect infringers," and added, "We were able to defend the case early by refutating Company B's claim that they misunderstood this as grounds for criminal punishment and even proving the use of their own trademark."

Intern reporter Yujin Lim iyj721@kyeonggi.com

[View full article]
Company representative accused of patent and trademark theft... Police say they are not subject to criminal punishment and will not be sent (link)