FINAL OUTCOME
Unfair competition found (Supreme Court remand)
INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED · Remanded
The Supreme Court found no source confusion but held the unauthorised use of the Kelly/Birkin shapes to be misappropriation under the Unfair Competition Act (item cha), remanding to the Seoul High Court. This is an unfair-competition ruling, not design or trademark infringement.
- Original
- Hermès Kelly bag, Birkin bag · Kelly known from the 1950s, Birkin from the 1980s (Supreme Court)
- Compared
- PLAYNOMORE “Eyes” bags · Unknown
- Launch gap
- Gap unknown
- Alleged
- Product shape, Trade dress
- Licence
- No licence found (not a finding of illegality)
- Rights
- Unfair competition
Look at how it actually ended, not at how alike it looks. An allegation is not a finding.
ALLEGATION → RESPONSE → DECISION → OUTCOME
Allegation
Hermès (2015) — Selling Kelly/Birkin shapes with an eyes motif is unfair competition [Unfair competition] · 머니투데이 (C)
Company response
Nothing confirmed
Court / agency decision
Seoul Central District Court · First instance · — — Claim upheld
Seoul High Court · Appeal · 2017-02-16 — Claim rejected
Supreme Court, 1st Division · Supreme Court · 2020-07-09 — Remanded
Final outcome
INFRINGEMENT CONFIRMED — A court or IP office found infringement or unfair competition
SIMILARITY MATRIX
What was said to be alike, item by item
- Launch
- Kelly known from the 1950s, Birkin from the 1980s (Supreme Court) → Unknown · Gap unknown
- Product shape
- Similarity alleged — Front and side shape, handle and flap, strap and fastener
- Logo
- Different — Own “eyes” motif added
- Product name
- Different
- Marketing concept
- Similarity alleged — “Fake for Fun” slogan, cited by the court as showing intent to ride on recognition
- Licence
- No licence found (not a finding of illegality)
- Legal conclusion
- Unfair competition found (Supreme Court remand)
No automatic image-similarity score is used; looking alike is not legal infringement. Official images are added once usage rights are confirmed.
TIMELINE
In order
- 2015 LEGALHermès sues for unfair competition · 머니투데이 (C)
- — LEGALHermès wins at first instance (date unconfirmed) · 법무법인 율촌 (C)
- 2017-02-16 LEGALSeoul High Court reverses · 법무법인 율촌 (C)
- 2020-07-09 OUTCOMESupreme Court remands, finding misappropriation · 대법원 (A)
LEGAL PROCESS
Each decision and its reasons
Seoul Central District Court · First instance
— · Unfair competition · Claim upheld · 법무법인 율촌 (C)
- Accepted the misappropriation claim (item (cha))
Seoul High Court · Appeal
2017-02-16 · 2016나2035091 · Unfair competition · Claim rejected · 법무법인 율촌 (C)
- Similarity alone did not risk source confusion, and no special circumstance made it misappropriation
Supreme Court, 1st Division · Supreme Court
2020-07-09 · 2017다217847 · Unfair competition · Remanded · 대법원 (A)
- Upheld the findings of no source confusion (item ga) and no dilution of a famous mark (item da)
- The Kelly/Birkin shapes are a product of substantial investment, distinctive, and not public domain
- Copies can erode scarcity and substitute some demand, harming economic interest
- Using a well-known mark fairly means licensing or collaboration; unauthorised use is unfair competition under item (cha)
Reasons are short paraphrases of the cited source only.
UNKNOWN
Left blank for lack of a source
- Outcome after remand and finality
- Damages
- PLAYNOMORE’s statement
No “saved R&D cost” estimate is made without real data.
SOURCES
Checked 2026-10-08. Not legal advice. Know of an error or a later ruling? Tell us.