Problem Diagnosis
Most Korean IP law firms and in-house departments still measure their practice by utility patent volume. International patent filings (PCT) remain the dominant reference point—Korea held fourth place with 23,851 applications in 2024. Yet the data show that the fastest-growing segment of international IP work is not patents. It is trademarks and designs, and the gap is widening.
This creates a bottleneck. Firms that have built their entire prosecution machinery around patents are missing the inbound and outbound work generated by the Madrid and Hague systems. Corporate IP managers who staff only for patent protection are leaving brand and design assets exposed overseas, while the cost of retroactive enforcement or third-party squatting rises. For a Korean IP bar that prides itself on global competitiveness, the practice model has not kept pace with the filing mix.
Analysis
Two sets of numbers tell the story. In 2023, Korean applicants filed 2,090 Madrid international trademark applications (ranked 9th worldwide) and 825 Hague international design applications (ranked 3rd), according to KIPO via the 2024 explanatory session reported by 중기이코노미. By 2024, those figures had climbed to 2,346 Madrid filings (up 12.1%) and 892 Hague filings (up 8.1%), maintaining the same global ranks.1 A separate KIPO statistics release, reported by Bizwnews, shows that international design applications grew 16.8% year-on-year in 2024, international trademarks 12.0%, and international patents only 7.1%.2 The growth rates are not equal; non-patent filings are accelerating faster.
The structural driver is straightforward. Korean consumer brands, cosmetics, entertainment, and electronics continue to expand globally, and the risk of trademark squatting in key markets is well documented. KIPO itself has highlighted that K-brand attention has led to a rise in unauthorized preemptive registrations. A Madrid or Hague filing is the logical early step for a cost-effective, multi-jurisdictional shield. Korean companies are not only seeking protection—they are generating a stream of outbound work that requires drafting, classification, and office-action responses across dozens of jurisdictions.
Inbound work is equally measurable. Under the Madrid Protocol, when a foreign applicant designates Korea, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) must examine the mark and issue any provisional refusal within 18 months of notification. The refusal must contain the international registration number, the grounds, and a statement of remedies; a refusal that omits the register number or the reasons is invalid.3 This creates a distinct, time-sensitive requirement for local counsel to represent the foreign right holder. The same dynamic applies to Hague design applications designating Korea, where substantive examination of novelty and industrial applicability demands local arguments. In both cases, the work is not an extension of patent practice—it requires command of distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and design patent law under Korean statutes, as well as the procedural rules of the Madrid and Hague systems.
For Korean attorneys, this is not a one-sided risk. A Korean company that is a heavy filer of international trademarks and designs benefits from a well-developed local bar that can handle inbound challenges from foreign competitors. The same attorney who represents a Korean cosmetics brand in outbound Madrid filings might also represent a European luxury house in a Madrid refusal before KIPO. The growth in both directions means that hedging the practice across patents, trademarks, and designs is a portfolio-level decision, not a niche preference.
Strategic Implication
For patent attorneys and IP managers, the immediate step is to audit the firm’s or department’s current international filing mix. If more than 80% of the foreign work is patent-related, the practice is underweight in the two fastest-growing IP asset classes. Three concrete actions follow:
- Build trademark and design prosecution capability now. Identify at least one attorney or paralegal who can master Madrid and Hague procedures—particularly the 18-month refusal deadline, the rules on invalid defective refusals, and the KIPO examination guidelines for acquired distinctiveness and design novelty. Begin handling inbound Madrid provisional refusals as co-counsel with a foreign firm to build a track record.
- Run a Madrid/Hague opportunity scan. Use WIPO’s Madrid Monitor or KIPO’s fee schedule to identify international registrations designating Korea that are within the 12-to-18-month window and have not yet retained local counsel. Reach out to the foreign applicant or its representative to offer response services. This is a direct, low-barrier entry point for firms that currently lack a trademark reputation.
- Revisit the corporate IP budget and outside counsel guidelines. For in-house teams, ensure that the annual IP budget allocates meaningful resources to international design and trademark filings, not just PCT patents. Require external counsel to demonstrate Madrid and Hague experience, and include a “no-squatting” audit of key markets in every brand launch checklist.
The shift is not a prediction. It is visible in the 2024 filings: 2,346 Madrid applications, 892 Hague applications, and a 16.8% surge in international design. The professionals who treat these numbers as a signal to expand their practice will capture the work; those who continue to treat IP as synonymous with patents will watch it flow elsewhere.
1 특허법인씨엔에스(유) news posting, citing KIPO press release of 2025.03.31: 2024 Madrid 2,346, Hague 892, PCT 23,851; 2023 figures from 중기이코노미, 2024.11.28, referencing KIPO data.
2 비즈월드, 2025.04.25, reporting KIPO/한국지식재산연구원 ‘지식재산 통계 FOCUS’ 잠정통계: international design +16.8%, trademark +12.0%, patent +7.1%.
3 KIPO Madrid 제도 안내: 거절통지의 하자와 보정 가능성, 1년 6개월 거절기한.
Sources
