Trademark, labelling, and advertising considerations for food businesses in Korea

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Trademark, labelling, and advertising considerations for food businesses in Korea

Sponsored by

hanolip-400px.png
kimbab-687172.jpg

Min Son of Hanol IP & Law provides a guide to the common pitfalls, legislation, and case law concerning the trademark protection, presentation, and promotion of food companies’ products in Korea

As consumer interest in healthcare grows, the number of trademark applications for foods and functional foods has also continued to increase. Trademarks for foods, including functional foods, which are directly related to the health and safety of consumers are subject to stricter examination standards than those for ordinary goods under South Korea’s Trademark Act. Furthermore, the labelling and advertising of foods using trademarks, packages, or containers thereof, etc. must also observe other administrative regulations, which have recently been revised.

Accordingly, in the brand naming of food trademarks, or the labelling and advertising of foods, it is wise to consider the following issues.

Food trademarks in violation of public order and morals

Trademarks that are likely to harm public health can be rejected or invalidated on the basis of “violations of public order or morals” under the Trademark Act.

For example, there is a heated controversy in Korea over the eligibility for registration of trademarks that use the word ‘drug’ (narcotics), particularly for foods such as drug gimbap (a roll) or drug tteokbokki (a spicy simmered rice cake).

The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) has refused to allow the registration of trademarks containing the word ‘drug’, as KIPO views that such trademarks will harm public order or morals.

However, in the case of the trademark ‘Drug Pillow’ for pillows, the IP High Court revoked the rejection decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board. The IP High Court ruled that the ‘Drug Pillow’ trademark is merely an implicit mark with the meaning of “a pillow that is so comfortable that it is highly addictive, or a pillow that you want to use over and over again”, and therefore it does not constitute a violation of public order and morals (IP High Court Decision 2019heo4024).

Nonetheless, even after the above ruling, KIPO continues to refuse trademarks containing the word ‘drug’ for goods that have a direct impact on public health and safety (for example, foods and medicines), or goods where children could be the main users (for example, toys).

Food trademarks that deceive or mislead consumers as to the ingredients

Trademarks that may confuse or deceive consumers as to the ingredients of the goods are to be rejected. Even after registration, such marks can be invalidated at any time without applying the five-year statutory period of limitation for initiation of an invalidation trial.

For example, under the Trademark Act, in the case of a ‘Milk’ mark for drinks that do not contain milk, trademark registration would not be allowed, since this mark could cause confusion or be misleading as if such drinks were “drinks containing dairy ingredients” or, at least, “milk-flavoured drinks”.

In line with the above, the IP High Court ruled that the trademark for Fishcake Restaurant (Odeng Sikdang in Korean) for food delivery services providing sausage stew rather than fishcakes should be invalidated because this mark caused confusion as if the restaurant provides delivery services for fishcakes, and thus that it had been registered in violation of the deceptive mark provision under the Trademark Act (IP High Court Decision 2021heo4003).

Limitation in labelling and advertising of foods under other administrative regulations

As of January 1 2023, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety revised the Act on Labelling and Advertising of Food to prohibit misleading labelling and advertising of foods using trademarks, packages, or containers thereof that may cause consumers to confuse the foods with non-food products. Violators of these rules may be subject to administrative measures, such as:

  • Corrective orders;

  • Recall and disposal;

  • Business suspension or fines; and

  • Manufacturing suspension orders.

The background for this revision lies in the fact that specific noise marketing has recently become popular in Korea. Namely, labelling trademarks of famous brands on products other than those for which the brands are known has attracted media and consumer attention.

Examples of such marketing include trademarks for ‘Seoul Milk’ for body wash, ‘Monami Magic’ for a sparkling drink, and ‘Horse’ for chocolate, which are well-known trademarks for milk, magic pens, and shoe polish, respectively. In these cases, not only the brand names but also the packages and containers of the goods are almost identical to those of the original goods, and thus these have received close attention from the media. Despite their success in marketing, concerns have been raised that public health and safety may be threatened because consumers, particularly children and the elderly, who are unfamiliar with foreign languages may mistake them for foods.

Under the above revision, labelling “milk” on foods and drinks that do not contain milk can violate this rule. To avoid such issues, it should be indicated as “milk-flavoured” or “milk-free” for goods without real dairy ingredients. Accordingly, in the field of plant-based alternative milk beverages, many beverage makers and beverage store chains have recently been considering changing labels and menus from “soy milk”, “oat milk”, or “peanut milk” to “soy drink”, “oat drink”, or “peanut drink” to avoid using the word ‘milk’.

The Fair Trade Commission has also recently revised the Examination Guidelines for Labelling and Advertising Relating to the Environment to regulate false, exaggerated, or deceptive indications when using common expressions in environment-related labels and advertisements for foods, such as “antibiotic-free” or “organic” (effective September 1 2023).

In addition, in 2023, the Seoul Metropolitan Government published and enacted the Ordinance on Improving Narcotic Product Name Usage Culture in consideration of public wariness towards drug abuse. It is expected that the ordinance will provide a basis for issuing recommendations for corrective actions on the use of product names containing the word ‘drug’ or ‘narcotics’ in the future. Other local governments are also proposing similar ordinances that are being reviewed by the relevant committees.

Summary

In Korea, the labelling and advertising of foods using trademarks, packages, or containers thereof, etc. may be regulated and restricted by the various administrative regulations above, as well as relevant provisions of the Trademark Act. Thus, any food companies that wish to do business in Korea should be familiar with the issues above when selecting marks, labelling, and advertising.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The move marks the latest step in Temu’s push to protect brands’ intellectual property by collaborating with industry groups and enforcement agencies. Managing IP learns about a rapidly scaling strategy and two success stories
A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Gift this article