Intellectual Property Academic Symposium hosted by the Korean Patent Attorneys Association and sponsored by the office of Representative Yoon Joon-ho

A claim has been raised that a court ruling last year, which allowed law firms to represent trademark applications, was an illegal decision that grants excessive privileges to lawyers. It is particularly pointed out as the ultimate "lawyer privilege" that recognizes the exercise of dual qualifications, strictly prohibited by current law for specialized professionals, only for lawyers.

Professor Emeritus Lee Seung-woo (Department of Law, Gachon University) and Professor Jang Chul-joon (Department of Law, Dankook University) presented research reports containing these points at an academic symposium hosted by the Korean Patent Attorneys Association and sponsored by the office of Representative Yoon Joon-ho of the Democratic Party of Korea, held at the National Assembly Library at 1:30 PM on the 28th.

Through the presentation of the research results titled "Study on the Unconstitutionality of Article 49 of the Attorneys-at-Law Act and Article 3, Item 2 of the Patent Attorneys Act," the two professors argued that the first and second-instance courts' rulings that the Korea Intellectual Property Office's disposition was unfair in the "Lawsuit for Cancellation of Trademark Application Representation by Law Firm Nullification Disposition" filed against the Korea Intellectual Property Office last year were unconstitutional rulings.

As grounds for this claim, the report pointed out that such rulings contain the problem of recognizing the exercise of dual qualifications by specialized professionals, which is prohibited by current law based on Article 49, Paragraph 2 of the Attorneys-at-Law Act. It stated that these rulings recognize lawyers with patent attorney qualifications affiliated with law firms as being able to conduct business activities as patent attorneys utilizing their dual qualifications in the same business location.

Furthermore, it was added that such court rulings would lead to the collapse of the specialized professional system itself by allowing a law firm with one lawyer holding dual qualifications to circumvent all professional areas of patent attorneys, characterizing them as regressive rulings that undermine the specialized professional system and lead to a "republic of lawyers by law firms."

Additionally, Article 3 of the Patent Attorneys Act, which stipulates the patent attorney qualifications of lawyers, and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree, which allows an exception to the "one patent attorney, one office" principle for lawyers, were also stated to have the potential for illegality or unconstitutionality.

This claim, made amidst ongoing debates about the constitutionality of provisions for judges' lawyer qualifications, points to rulings biased towards the legal profession, suggesting that controversies surrounding judicial distrust and judicial independence will continue in the future.

Meanwhile, the court had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiff (applicant) in the lawsuit for cancellation of the nullification disposition filed by an applicant for a trademark application under the name of a law firm, which was nullified by the Korea Intellectual Property Office based on the Patent Attorneys Act, which stipulates that only patent attorneys and patent corporations can represent industrial property applications. In response, the Korea Intellectual Property Office filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in November last year, and the case is currently pending.

Overview of the Korean Patent Attorneys Association

The Korean Patent Attorneys Association (KPAA) is a statutory organization established with patent attorneys in the Republic of Korea as its members, in accordance with Article 9 of the Patent Attorneys Act.                                

Website: http://www.kpaa.or.kr