South Korea is currently seeing a series of disputes concerning the scope of protection for a three-dimensional (3D) bear-shaped trademark owned by RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo). As bear-shaped gummies have been sold in Korea for decades under various brand names, recent cases have examined how broadly a 3D product-shape mark may be construed in a market where similar shapes are common.

RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) maintains six 3D bear-shaped registrations in Class 30. Two of them, Registration Nos. 1183780 and 1183782, have been the subject of multiple scope confirmation actions involving brands such as Weeny Beeny, Frutips, Bebeto, and Trolli.

1.  Current Landscape

Among the six registrations owned by RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo), litigation has centered on:

Reg. No. 1183780, challenged in a negative scope confirmation action

Reg. No. 1183782, invoked in several positive scope confirmation actions

The remaining registrations (Nos. 40-1183778, 40-1183779, 40-1183781, and 40-1183783) concern related but distinct bear-shaped configurations.

Bear-shaped gummies have been widely distributed in Korea since at least the 1980s, long before the 2015 filings by RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo). This longstanding presence of similar shapes across various brands formed part of the factual context in later judicial assessments. 

2. Summary and Analysis of Key Decisions

Weeny Beeny vs. RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) – Negative Scope Confirmation for Reg. No. 1183780

(1) IPTAB 2023Dang831 – Claim Dismissed (April 9, 2024)

The IPTAB found that the Weeny Beeny bear shape was similar to the registered 3D bear shape and had been used in a trademark manner, acknowledging acquired distinctiveness.

(2) IP High Court 2024Heo12388 – Decision Reversed (February 14, 2025)

The IP High Court took a different view. It held that the Weeny Beeny bear shape functioned only as a product form in a Pick & Mix environment where many shapes coexist, and therefore did not function as a trademark. The court also identified expressive differences in contours, facial features, and overall proportions, and noted the longstanding presence of similar bear-shaped gummies in the Korean market.

The IPTAB decision was annulled. 

(3) Supreme Court 2025Hu10157 – Appeal Dismissed (July 3, 2025)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo), confirming the limited scope of protection for the registered 3D bear shape.

RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) vs. Frutips – Positive Scope Confirmation for Reg. No. 1183782

(1) IPTAB 2023Dang886 – Claim Dismissed (September 25, 2025)

This dispute was filed only six days after the Weeny Beeny case, but the IPTAB issued its decision more than two years later, shortly after the Supreme Court ruling in Case 2025Hu10157. The timing suggests that the IPTAB may have awaited the Supreme Court’s clarification before deciding this matter. Once the Supreme Court confirmed the narrow protection afforded to the registered 3D bear shape, the IPTAB dismissed the positive scope confirmation claim for Reg. No. 1183782 based on similar reasoning. 

3. Prospects for Ongoing Proceedings

Three additional actions concerning Reg. No. 1183782 remain pending:

RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) vs. Frutips – IP High Court Case 2025Heo10583

RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) vs. Bebeto – IPTAB 2024Dang1916

RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) vs. Trolli – IPTAB 2024Dang1931

Although the target shapes differ across these proceedings, the recent decisions of the Supreme Court and the IP High Court indicate the analytical approach likely to be taken, particularly with respect to whether a shape is used as a trademark and whether its expressive features are sufficiently similar to fall within the scope of the registered mark. Given the courts’ emphasis on the crowded market environment and the limited distinctiveness of general bear shapes, obtaining a broad interpretation in favor of RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) may be difficult, although outcomes will ultimately depend on the individual configuration of each confirmation-target shape. 

4. Conclusion

The disputes involving the 3D bear-shaped marks of RiGO Trading S.A. (Haribo) reflect a consistent judicial trend in Korea: product shapes commonly used in an industry, or familiar to consumers for long periods, are afforded a narrow scope of trademark protection.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion that the registration cannot monopolize the general concept of a bear-shaped gummy has become a key reference point. Subsequent decisions have focused on trademark use, expressive differences, and the historical presence of similar shapes in the marketplace.

As further cases proceed, they will continue to define the contours of shape-mark protection in Korea. For now, broader protection for 3D marks will likely require distinctive expressive elements, consistent trademark use, and strong evidence of acquired distinctiveness.