Lee International

​The Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) amended the Trademark Examination Guidelines and Procedures to improve the speed and efficiency of trademark examination and enhance the objectivity of the examination process.  The amendments took effect on July 1, 2026.

Enhanced Efficiency of the Partial Refusal System

Under the amended Guidelines, where examination of a later-filed trademark application has been suspended due to an identical or similar earlier-filed trademark application owned by another party, if a refusal of all or some of the designated goods of the earlier-filed application becomes final and conclusive, thereby resolving the conflict between the designated goods of the two applications, the grounds for suspension of examination of the later-filed application will be deemed to have ceased to exist as of the date on which the refusal becomes final and conclusive.

Previously, even if a partial refusal of the earlier-filed application became final and conclusive and the conflict with the later-filed application was thereby resolved, examination of the later-filed application could remain suspended until the registrability of the remaining designated goods of the earlier-filed application was determined.

Under the amended Guidelines, however, once a partial refusal of the earlier-filed application becomes final and conclusive, examination of the later-filed application is expected to resume more promptly, regardless of whether the remaining designated goods of the earlier-filed application are ultimately registered.  Accordingly, applicants whose trademark applications have been suspended due to earlier-filed applications should closely monitor the examination status of the earlier-filed application, particularly whether refusals concerning the relevant designated goods have become final and conclusive.

Elimination of the Advance Notice of Refusal

The amended Guidelines also streamline the examination procedure by eliminating the additional advance notice of refusal previously issued when an applicant failed to respond to an Office Action concerning broad and vague descriptions of the designated goods.  Previously, even where an applicant failed to respond and the grounds for such refusal remained unresolved, an additional advance notice of refusal was issued before a final refusal.

Under the amended Guidelines, designated goods for which such grounds for refusal remain unresolved may now be subject to a final refusal without such advance notice.  Meanwhile, designated goods for which no grounds for refusal exist may proceed to registration without unnecessary delay.

Accordingly, applicants should pay particular attention to properly identifying the designated goods at the time of filing and responding promptly to any such grounds for refusal raised during examination.

Assignment of a New Examiner upon Remand

Under the amended Guidelines, where an applicant appeals a final refusal to the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB), and the refusal is overturned and the application is remanded for further examination, the application will be assigned to a different examiner rather than the examiner who issued the original refusal.

This change extends to the examination stage the principle, recognized in the IPTAB and court proceedings, that a person involved in an earlier decision should not participate in a subsequent review of the same matter.  By assigning a different examiner, the amendment seeks to minimize the potential influence of the previous examiner’s determination and enhance the objectivity and reliability of the examination process.

Accordingly, applicants who successfully overturn a refusal on appeal can expect their applications to undergo further examination by a newly assigned examiner, thereby promoting a more reliable and objective review.