File Before You Launch: Trademark Squatting Has Moved Out of China
KIPO tracked 9,249 suspicious overseas filings against Korean brands in one year, up 84 percent. But Southeast Asia now records more than double China's case count. Brands protecting against yesterday's risk map are leaving Vietnam and Indonesia open.
Sulbing won. That is the part people forget.
The Korean shaved ice chain discovered in 2015 that a local operator in China had registered a near-identical mark and copied its menu, uniforms, buzzers and interior design. Sulbing filed an invalidation action and won in 2022. Seven years.
By then it did not matter. Sulbing withdrew from the Chinese market anyway and refunded roughly 1 billion won in licensing fees to local partners. The company's own conclusion: "We strongly urge other Korean companies to secure local trademark rights before expanding abroad."
The lesson is not that you can win. It is that the delay itself is usually the fatal cost.
The risk map most brands are still using is out of date
KIPO's monitoring of suspicious overseas filings against Korean brands hit a record 9,249 cases in the most recent full year measured, up 84 percent year on year. The trajectory: under 1,000 a year until 2017, then 1,666 in 2018, 4,654 in 2022, 9,249 in 2024.
Now the part that changes strategy.
Southeast Asia recorded 5,091 suspected squatting cases against Korean brands. China recorded 2,162. More than double.
China has tightened IP enforcement. Vietnam and Indonesia have weaker enforcement combined with strong Hallyu-driven demand, which is exactly the combination squatters look for. Named Vietnam cases include Tom N Toms, Nene Chicken and Hanssem.
A brand that filed defensively in China and considers itself covered is protecting against the 2018 risk profile.
The same pattern appears in counterfeits, which are a related but separate problem. Of roughly 192,000 counterfeit cases blocked from overseas online platforms in 2024, up 20 percent, Southeast Asia accounted for 104,360 against China's 34,859.
When Madrid works and when it does not
The Madrid Protocol route runs through KIPO as office of origin. KIPO certifies that your application matches your Korean base mark, forwards it to WIPO, and each designated country then examines it under its own law.
WIPO fees: basic fee of 653 Swiss francs for black and white, or 903 for colour, plus 100 francs per designated country, plus 100 francs per class above three. KIPO may add a handling fee.
Timeline: roughly 14 months to publication if no refusals are raised. Individual country examination can run well beyond that.
The risk nobody explains properly is central attack. For the first five years from the international registration date, if your Korean base mark is successfully challenged, limited or cancelled, every designated country's protection falls with it. There is a three month transformation window to convert into separate national applications, but that means paying national filing fees again, often at a worse priority date.
So Madrid concentrates risk in your home registration for five years. If your Korean mark is at all vulnerable, that concentration matters.
Where direct filing beats Madrid
China. Technically available through Madrid, but direct CNIPA filing is usually safer. It can be filed immediately without waiting for your Korean base application to mature, and it is not exposed to central attack. In a first-to-file environment moving as fast as China's, immediacy is the whole point. Official fee is RMB 270 per class by e-filing. Foreign applicants without a China domicile must appoint a licensed local agent, at RMB 2,000 to 4,000. Realistic total is $400 to
United States. Madrid extensions use Section 66(a) only. This gives foreign applicants something domestic filers do not get, namely no requirement to prove actual use before registration, only a bona fide intent declaration. The catch is that USPTO applies unusually strict goods and services identification standards, and a Korean base application's broader Nice class wording routinely triggers office actions. Worse, 66(a) registrations cannot later change filing basis or be divided. For a complex or evolving product line, direct US filing avoids expensive amendment cycles.
EU. EUIPO direct e-filing costs €850 for one class, €50 for the second, €150 for each additional class, identical regardless of applicant size or location. The EU is already a single registration system, so Madrid's main advantage largely disappears. Madrid helps mainly when bundling the EU with several other Madrid members in one filing.
Japan. We did not verify Japan-specific guidance to the standard applied elsewhere in this piece, so we are not offering a recommendation.
The tool for reclaiming a squatted mark just got more expensive
This matters if your China budget was drafted before 2025.
Non-use cancellation has been the standard route for reclaiming a dormant squatter registration. Since amendments issued from February 2025, CNIPA has raised the evidentiary bar. A bare Baidu search screenshot is no longer sufficient as prima facie evidence.
Recovery cost estimates, from law firm and vendor sources rather than an official tally, put defensive registration across core China classes at around ¥5,000 and a full invalidation fight at ¥500,000 or more, with an uncertain outcome even when you win. Sulbing is the illustration.
Any China recovery budget written before 2025 is understated.
Trademarks are now platform access, not just legal protection
This is the part that converts an IP question into a revenue question.
Amazon Brand Registry requires an active registered trademark, or a pending application filed through Amazon's own IP Accelerator programme with a vetted law firm. A directly filed pending USPTO application does not qualify. The brand name must match the trademark text exactly, and a US Amazon store requires a US trademark specifically. A Korean or EU registration alone does not unlock US Brand Registry.
USPTO average pendency was around 9.9 to 10 months as of May 2026. So a brand that files directly and plans an Amazon US launch in six months has a problem it will not discover until it tries to enrol.
Tmall requires a trademark registration certificate, or the certificate plus a letter of authorisation if you sell as an authorised dealer.
Shopee operates a Brand IP Portal requiring registration documents valid in the country where the infringing listing is hosted, with validation typically taking three to five business days.
Rakuten's seller trademark requirements we could not confirm, so we are not stating one.
The practical consequence: your trademark filing date is now a gating input on your launch calendar, not a legal housekeeping task to handle later.
Korean government support most SMEs do not claim
There is real money available and the application windows are narrow.
KIPA Regional IP Centre programme, 2026:
- Global IP Star Company track, for exporting or export-planning SMEs: overseas trademark filing support up to 2.1 million won per case, covering agent fees, translation and official filing fees, with a 40 percent company co-payment in cash. The 2026 application window ran 12 January to 19 February.
- IP Emergency Support track: rolling quarterly, capped at 20 million won per company across all support items, 40 percent cash co-payment for overseas filings.
- Small business track: domestic trademark filing support up to 533,000 won, with the 20 percent co-payment waived entirely if the applicant completes a basic IP awareness course.
Not all 26 regional centres support every track, and follow-on overseas support "varies by regional centre." Check your local centre rather than assuming.
KOTRA's Export Voucher programme has a record 89.9 billion won budget for FY2026, covering up to 8,000 service types across 14 categories including IP services.
The new model worth understanding before you use it
KIPO launched a K-Brand certification in 2026 that works differently from any subsidy.
Instead of helping fund your filing, the Korean government itself files and holds the overseas trademark as rights holder on behalf of certified K-food, K-beauty and K-fashion products, across 70 export countries identified as high counterfeit risk. It includes QR code and AI watermark anti-counterfeiting technology tied to real-time monitoring, and confirmed counterfeit distribution triggers coordinated action across several ministries and Korea Customs. Applications opened in August 2026.
For an SME that cannot afford serious enforcement, this is a genuine option. But be clear about the trade. You are handing some control over enforcement decisions to a government body. That is a reasonable trade for many brands and the wrong one for others, and it should be a deliberate choice rather than a default.
One note on sourcing: the announcement we found carried an internal date inconsistency, so confirm specifics directly with KIPO.
What to do
1. File before public exposure, not before market entry. K-pop and K-drama product placement often precedes formal entry by years and is exactly what tips off squatters. Your exposure starts when the brand becomes visible, not when you start selling.
2. Update your risk map. Vietnam and Indonesia now outrank China for squatting against Korean brands.
3. Decide Madrid versus direct per country, not as a single policy. China and the US frequently justify direct filing.
4. Work backwards from your platform launch date. Ten months of USPTO pendency against an Amazon Brand Registry requirement is a scheduling constraint.
5. Check the KIPA window. The Global IP Star application period is roughly six weeks, in January and February.
The brands that avoid the Sulbing outcome are not the ones with the best litigators. They are the ones who filed while the brand was still small enough that nobody had bothered to squat it.
Filing fees, programme amounts and application windows cited here are current as of publication and drawn from WIPO, EUIPO, KIPA official notices and Korean press reporting. Recovery cost estimates are practitioner figures rather than official tallies. Government programme terms change annually, so confirm current eligibility before applying.