The Seoul Central District Court recently issued a permanent injunction order in a case involving a Korean dermatology clinic that had been using the well-known CHANEL mark in connection with its services, ruling that such use was likely to tarnish the distinctive character and reputation of the world famous mark.

The defendant was a dermatology clinic specializing in esthetic services, and had been promoting a skin treatment that promised better-looking skin through injecting a product called "NCTF 135 injection," which the clinic referred to as CHANEL INJECTION in Korean.

(Typical Example of Defendant's Advertisements
Translation: "New concept treatment with great skin regeneration effect!
CHANEL INJECTION in Korean")

The Seoul Central District Court reviewed the extensive fame evidence submitted by Kim & Chang on behalf of Chanel, and concluded that the CHANEL mark had a very high level of recognition in South Korea, noting that the mark had been used since at least 1986 across the Korean territory and was referenced in countless articles as a very well-known and respected brand. Due to this exceptional level of recognition, the Court found that the scope of protection of the CHANEL mark extended beyond goods or services that were similar to Chanel's goods and services.

The Court noted on the other hand that the defendant clearly was trying to capitalize on the notoriety of the CHANEL mark, such as by using a bolder font for the CHANEL portion of the expression CHANEL INJECTION in Korean, and by using the slogan "Skin boost, a miracle of French Luxury" to reinforce in the minds of consumers a link with the world-famous luxury brand.

The Court concluded that the defendant's use of the CHANEL mark in connection with common goods and services was likely to result in decreased desire on the part of consumers to purchase CHANEL goods, which are currently perceived as luxurious, of high quality and difficult to acquire, and therefore that the defendant's actions had damaged the fame and reputation of the CHANEL mark.

As a result, the Court ruled that the defendant's acts tarnished the distinctive character and reputation of CHANEL in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and ordered the defendant not to display or use "CHANEL" or "샤넬" (CHANEL in Korean transliteration) as an identifier of its business.

This decision significantly reinforces that very well-known marks can be strongly protected and enforced in Korea, even against infringers using such marks in connection with goods or services that are not directly related to the mark owner's business.