my timesThe Korea Times

Court Rules Online Market Host Not Responsible for Fake Item Trading

Listen

By Bae Ji-sook

Staff Reporter

A court ruled Tuesday that an online ``open market'' host did not have to compensate a company for losses associated with the auction of fake items among its members. The ruling was in favor of online shopping mall www.interpark.com in a suit filed by sports gear maker K2.

The court decision is the first of its kind on online shopping mall's commercial responsibility.

Interpark has an online market system where members auction items _ the seller and buyer strike a bargain and the host does not intervene unless illegalities occur.

K2, famous for lines of hiking goods, sued Interpark after learning several people were selling bogus items on the Web site and promoting them as genuine. The Supreme Court had ruled that K2's logo using a gothic style alphabet and number could be identified as a unique ``brand trademark.''

Interpark had banned the sales of fake K2 items upon the company's request, and said it has kept screening for similar items, however, the sporting goods merchandiser sued asking for 100 million won in compensation.

Seoul Central District Court ruled against K2 saying Interpark had done all it could to help K2 with regard to the online trades.

``It's true that selling items similar to K2 as the genuine product online is illegal but Interpark cannot screen all items based on the simple possibility,'' the ruling said. ``It's not Interpark that has violated the copyright law and it does inform customers of the possibility of buying fake items. Also, banning the sales of K2 goods or fake K2 products showed the willingness of the online mall to root out such illegalities,'' the court said.

The decision is the opposite of its previous rulings in favor of a copyright holder. Previously, the court ruled in favor of ``Hinoki,'' a shampoo maker, which had asked for a ban of fake items on online market Gmarket.

Then, it said, ``Though Gmarket was aware of the violation of the Copyright Law, it continued its sales saying they could be referred to as permission or laissez-faire,'' and posted a banning order.

bjs@koreatimes.co.kr