Attorneys Seung-Hun Lee and Yun-Sil Jang of Dentons Lee recently won a lawsuit defending a company accused of copying a chair design known as a Curble Chair, sometimes referred to as a “Son Yeon-jae Chair.”

A Curble Chair is a chair that corrects one’s sitting posture. The company manufacturing this chair increased its market share by conducting aggressive marketing activities, including hiring Son Yeon-jae, a famous rhythmic gymnast of South Korea, as its model beginning in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Since then, the size of the market for chairs to correct sitting posture has expanded and the industry saw a number of other companies manufacturing and selling their own chairs of this type.

Seeing this trend, Ablue, the manufacturer of the Curble Chair, filed a lawsuit against Nice Factory, its greatest rival in the market, claiming unfair competition and infringement of its design. Ablue sought to prohibit sales of a competing chair and monetary damages, alleging that Nice Factory’s Bareun Angel Chair illegally imitated Ablue’sCurble Chair. This lawsuit was widely discussed in the trade and even received media coverage.

Dentons Lee represented the defendant, Nice Factory in the litigation. Our defense team raised a number of defenses. They argued: (i) the shape of the chair which the plaintiff contended was a well-known product mark could not be considered a product mark; (ii) even before the plaintiff’s Curble Chair was created, several types of chairs that corrected sitting posture were manufactured and sold, and related patents and trademarks were registered; (iii) defendant Nice Factory had its own design rights registered on its Bareun Angel Chair; and (iv) the expansion of the market for chairs to correct sitting posture, which the plaintiff argued was its achievement, could not be seen as a result of plaintiff’s sales. The court agreed, accepting all the arguments made by Dentons Lee and dismissing plaintiff’s claims.

As a result of this case decision in favor of the defendant, it has now been confirmed that (i) courts must conduct a strict examination when they decide if ‘the form of a product’ can be considered ‘a mark indicating another person’s goods’ (including a trademark), and (ii) General Unfair Competition Act arguments can be accepted only if there are enough factual and legal grounds. In particular, after the recent amendment of the related act which now states “any act of infringing on another person’s economic interests by using the outcomes achieved by them through substantial investment or efforts without permission, in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or a competition order” is an act of unfair competition, an increasing number of litigation matters are being filed, quoting the above definition on what is considered a general act of unfair competition. In this regard, the judgment in this case now has clarified the scope of the legal principle on general acts of unfair competition.

About Dentons

Across over 80 countries, Dentons helps you grow, protect, operate and finance your organization by providing uniquely global and deeply local legal solutions. Polycentric, purpose-driven and committed to inclusion, diversity, equity and sustainability, we focus on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com