The mark of local coffee chain Starpreya, right, shows strong resemblance with the Starbucks logo.

By Jane Han
Staff Reporter

Does last year's Starbucks v. Starpreya battle over beverage brands ring a bell?

A trademark infringement case, in which the court sided with the local out-of-the-truck seller _ with a strikingly similar look and feel to Starbucks _ against the world's largest coffee chain stirred observers to ask, ``How close can you come in Korea?''

Pretty close _ but almost a year later, the court last week ruled against a ``PC bang'' (Internet cafe) that apparently copied a competitor's brand, which law experts say is a landmark decision that sends businesses a strong message.

``It tells them that imitating is illegal _ period,'' said patent attorney Kim Joong-hyo of Choice Kim Patent Trademark Law Office. ``There really should be no argument about that, but many got away with it as preceding cases didn't rule strongly against copycats.''

Two years after Zone & Zone PC bang filed a suit in 2005 against LOHAS for stealing insider information and brand imitation, the Seoul District Court sentenced the defendants to six to eight months in prison suspended for two years for infringing the Trade Secret and Unfair Competition Law.

``An appeal is yet to be heard, but the ruling so far is good news for the franchise industry,'' said Samantha Min, a lawyer of YOU ME Patent & Law Firm.

She explained that the court demonstrated that it will clamp down on copycat businesses, which have become commonplace in the local industry.

Chicken franchise Kyochon and its alleged copycat Pochon Chicken, and pub chain Jjoki Jjoki against eateries Suhyouki and Black Jjoki are major examples of local look-alike businesses.

As Jjoki Jjoki currently has a case filed against Suhyouki, the company spokeswoman says they are optimistic about the outcome.

``From the start, we've been optimistic about the court's decision, but the recent ruling should give us a better push,'' she said.

Patent attorney Kim said it's about time that related laws were tightened up in Korea, as such unfair business practices haven't been tolerated in other advanced countries for long.

He explained that, in the U.S., the law doesn't regulate whether the brand image is identical in terms of logo and other visuals, but rather regarding its overall image, defined as ``Trade Dress.''

Trade Dress is a distinctive, nonfunctional feature, which distinguishes a merchant's or manufacturer's goods or services from those of another.

Min further explained, ``Examples include the packing for Wonder Bread, the tray configuration for Healthy Choice frozen dinners and the color scheme of Subway shops. Such a broad and ambiguous definition makes Trade Dress very easy to manipulate.''

She said that the Intellectual Property Law itself isn't lenient here, but the punishment is.

``If an identical case were to judged in Korea and in the U.S., the ruling would be very different,'' Min said.

Because Korea is moving toward borderless business and growing as an economic powerhouse, the patent legal expert said the local IP law and rulings against copycats would continue to get tougher.

``If you want to be treated as an advanced country, you have to have high business standards,'' he said. ``And plus, if you want to do business, why not do it in a more creative way instead of copying?''

jhan@koreatimes.co.kr