This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz RM Report website at 2:34 p.m. on Jun. 1, 2026.
A court ruled that Hanssem's decision not to renew its trademark license agreement with its supplier Ozen was justified. While it acknowledged that Hanssem held a superior position in the transaction compared with Ozen, it said the refusal to renew the contract itself could not be seen as an abuse of superior bargaining position.
The Administrative Division 3 of the Seoul High Court (High Court Judges Yoon Kang-yeol, Kim Hyeong-jin and Kim Seon-a) ruled for the plaintiff on the 28th in the suit Hanssem filed to cancel a warning disposition by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC). The bench canceled the warning disposition the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) issued in Jan. last year and ordered the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) to bear all litigation expense.
The case began when Hanssem signed a trademark license agreement with Ozen in Jul. 2021. Under the agreement, Ozen used the Hanssem mark for one year to sell vacuum blenders, water purifiers and clothes dryers. After the term ended, Hanssem notified Ozen that it would terminate the agreement without an additional extension.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) viewed that Hanssem used its superior position in the transaction to impose unjust disadvantages on Ozen and issued a warning disposition. It determined that notifying Ozen—whose sales heavily depended on the Hanssem mark—of contract termination constituted an unfair practice.
Hanssem contested the decision and filed suit with the Seoul High Court in Feb. last year. Hanssem argued that it simply chose not to renew after the term ended based on a reasonable management judgment, and did not abuse its position in the transaction.
The issue was whether Hanssem's refusal to renew the agreement constituted abuse of a superior position in the transaction. The bench first acknowledged that Hanssem held a superior position in the transaction compared with Ozen.
It found that Hanssem had strong brand recognition in the home furniture sector and that the two companies differed in business capabilities. It also considered that, from Ozen's perspective, sales derived from using the Hanssem mark accounted for 90% of the company's total sales in 2022.
However, the bench determined that the mere fact of holding a superior position in the transaction does not make a refusal to renew an unfair practice. The contract term and renewal method were clearly stated in the agreement, and there was no clause that could have led Ozen to expect automatic renewal.
The bench said, "When the contract term ends, the agreement provides that the parties may extend or renew the contract through separate discussions," and added, "There is no provision stating it renews automatically, nor any clause that would give Ozen an expectation of renewal."
During the trial, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) presented a "letter of intent to purchase" prepared by Hanssem in May 2021 as key evidence, but the bench did not accept it. It determined that the document alone did not establish a trust that would justify Ozen's expectation of contract renewal.
The bench also relied on the outcomes of other lawsuits between the two companies. Ozen filed a civil damages suit against Hanssem, claiming losses from the refusal to renew, but the Suwon High Court rejected it in Sep. last year. The Intellectual Property High Court recognized in Jan. last year that Ozen infringed a registered trademark right by using the Hanssem mark without authorization after the contract expired.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) has not yet appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) does not appeal by Jun. 11, this ruling will be finalized as is.