Education startup "Tandem" sued well-known education company Jinhaksa, saying it plagiarized the college review service "Ad Campus" that Tandem developed, but the Supreme Court did not side with Tandem. The court found there was no likelihood of confusion because the two companies' services, though similar, would not be confused.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Suk-yeon) said on the 16th that on the 9th it overturned an appellate ruling ordering Jinhaksa to pay Tandem 20 million won in a lawsuit to confirm the nonexistence of debt and in lawsuits seeking an injunction against unfair competition and damages between Jinhaksa and Tandem, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.
Tandem is an edu-tech corporations founded in 2016. It operates services including "Ad Campus," a college and department review service written directly by enrolled university students. Ad Campus launched in May 2016.
In 2018, Tandem signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Jinhaksa on developing a college review service. Jinhaksa later launched "Campus Review" in 2019, offering a similar service.
Tandem reported Jinhaksa to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, saying Jinhaksa developed Campus Review by copying the Ad Campus service and committed an unfair competition act of idea theft. The Korean Intellectual Property Office recommended that Jinhaksa pay review usage fees. The office took issue not with the development of Campus Review itself, but with Jinhaksa posting Tandem's reviews provided under the memorandum of understanding on Campus Review.
Jinhaksa did not follow the recommendation and filed a lawsuit against Tandem to confirm the nonexistence of debt. It argued it did not have to pay review usage fees. Tandem then filed a lawsuit against Jinhaksa seeking an injunction against unfair competition and damages.
The first trial dismissed all of Tandem's claims. It found that Jinhaksa did not have to pay review usage fees to Tandem and that there was no debt for damages due to unfair competition or tort that Jinhaksa had to pay to Tandem. The first-instance court said Jinhaksa's posting of Tandem's reviews was a lawful economic activity under the memorandum of understanding.
On appeal, the court ruled that Jinhaksa engaged in unfair competition and ordered it to pay Tandem 20 million won in damages. The appellate court found that Jinhaksa had used, without authorization, review data provided by Tandem and an API—an interface that allows direct queries on information stored on Tandem's servers—from Jinhaksa's servers in developing Campus Review.
The Supreme Court, by contrast, did not accept Tandem's arguments. It determined, "The method of querying data stored on a server, such as the API at issue, had been widely known in the field of university review services before the Tandem service," and found it difficult to view it as subject to protection under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
The court also noted, "Tandem failed to submit evidence that even a single review among the numerous review data was used in the service developed by Jinhaksa." It added, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by Tandem, we cannot find circumstances indicating a likelihood of confusion among consumers or traders that the two companies' services are substantially identical or similar."
The Supreme Court further said Jinhaksa had operated an online lecture review service since 2016 and a corporations review service related to employment since 2017, and "had its own know-how to provide review services."