​I. 2026 Updates on Trademark and Design Practice in Korea​ 

The Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) has recently announced its 2026 policy directions and key amendments concerning trademark and design practice. We summarize below the developments that may affect our clients' filing strategies and IP portfolio management.

In the trademark field, a "super-fast examination" system has been introduced to support export-oriented companies in securing rights more promptly, and has been in effect since October 2025. Under this system, eligible export companies may receive an examination result within 30 days from the filing of a request for accelerated examination. This is expected to facilitate earlier protection for companies preparing to enter overseas markets. In addition, as of February 2026, applicants filing international trademark applications may indicate the name of their representative in Korean, whereas previously it had to be provided only in English. This change is intended to reduce the need for corrections arising from misspellings in English.

Furthermore, the goods classification system has been partially reorganized since January 2026. The similarity criteria between pharmaceuticals and medical devices for human and veterinary use have been adjusted, and the classification framework has been updated to better reflect market practices. In line with the 2026 revision of the Nice Classification, certain goods have also been reclassified. For example, spectacles, lenses, and sunglasses have moved from Class 9 to Class 10, and essential oils are now classified according to their specific use (e.g., Class 1 for manufacturing purposes and Class 30 for food use). These changes may warrant a review of filing strategies for new applications as well as an audit of existing portfolios.

In the design field, effective November 2025, the period for filing an opposition by an interested party who has received a notice of alleged infringement has been extended. In addition, a claim for transfer of rights by the legitimate right holder has been introduced, providing a more effective mechanism for resolving disputes involving misappropriated applications. Amendments have also been made to allow simplified descriptions in design applications and to clarify procedures for applications filed by the rightful owner, thereby improving procedural convenience for applicants.

These developments are expected to have particular implications for export-driven companies, businesses in the pharmaceutical and medical device sectors, and companies managing global brand portfolios.

​II. Case Insight: Filing Strategy for the "Buldak" Mark and Global Brand Protection​ 

It has recently been reported that Samyang Foods plans to file a Korean trademark application for the English mark "Buldak," the Romanized form of its well-known Korean brand name. This move appears to be part of a broader effort to strengthen brand protection as the global popularity of its "Buldak" products has led to an increase in look-alike and copycat goods in overseas markets.

Samyang Foods has reportedly secured or is pursuing numerous trademark registrations related to its "Buldak" products in approximately 88 countries, covering not only the word mark "Buldak" but also character marks and packaging designs. However, the Korean word mark "불닭" has previously been found by Korean courts to have become generic, thereby limiting its exclusivity in Korea. Against this background, the filing of the English mark "Buldak" is noteworthy as part of a broader brand portfolio realignment strategy.

In various jurisdictions—including China, the Middle East, the United States, and parts of Europe—products bearing the name "Buldak" or similar variations, as well as imitations of the original packaging and character elements, have reportedly been distributed. Enforcement measures such as cease-and-desist letters, administrative complaints, and seizure requests have been undertaken to address such infringements.

This case illustrates several important considerations for companies expanding globally. Even where a native-language mark has become generic or has weakened distinctiveness in its home jurisdiction, a transliterated or Romanized version may still be capable of functioning as a distinctive mark in certain markets. The distinctiveness of such transliterations will depend on whether the term conveys a descriptive meaning in the relevant jurisdiction. Early and coordinated filings covering the original-language mark, its Romanized form, and relevant local-language translations can form the backbone of an effective international enforcement strategy. In addition, layered protection covering not only word marks but also characters and packaging designs can significantly enhance enforceability against copycat products.

Overall, the "Buldak" case highlights the importance of market-specific distinctiveness analysis and proactive portfolio management for brand owners pursuing global expansion.