Positive Cycle: Chinese Court Enforces Korean Trademark Judgments, Confirming De Jure Reciprocity with South Korea

In December 2024, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (the “Beijing Court”) ruled to recognize and enforce two South Korean trademark judgments (See SD Biotechnologies Co. Ltd v. LAP F&C (2022) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No.23-1 ((2022) 京04协外认23号之一)). One of the Korean judgments was issued by the Korean Supreme Court (case no. 2021Da273271), and the other was rendered by the Seoul Central District Court (case no 2019GaHap538710).

This is the second reported case of a Korean IP-related judgment being recognized in China, according to the CJO database, following the one from four years ago in SD Biotechnologies Co. Ltd v. 99 Trade Co. Ltd (2019) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No.3 ((2019)京04协外认3号).

Coincidentally, the two cases have many similarities. Both involve the same applicant, SD Biotechnologies (the parent company of the popular Korean skincare brand SNP), and the same Chinese court greenlighted both for the recognition and enforcement of Korean trademark judgments.

Though the full text of the judgment has not yet been made publicly available, we can get a rough picture of this case from the Beijing Court’s news report, the court’s public notices on the People's Daily (Overseas Edition), together with the Junhe Law Office’s “2024 Junhe Business Research Report” published on 1 July 2025.

China Enforces Foreign Intellectual Property Judgment for the First Time

1. Case background

Both the applicant, SD Biotechnologies Co., Ltd, and the respondent, LAP F&C, are South Korean companies. The case involves 38 trademarks registered with Chinese administrative authorities.

SD Biotechnologies and Mr. C, the founder and actual controller of LAP F&C, signed an Executive Agreement providing that all inventions, patents, registered trademarks, and other intellectual property developed by Mr. C during his tenure would belong to SD Biotechnologies. LAP F&C was the holder of the disputed trademarks. The parties also entered into a Supplementary Agreement, under which Mr. C transferred ownership of a brand and all its products to SD Biotechnologies in exchange for payment. However, after receiving the payment, LAP F&C failed to transfer the registered trademarks. Consequently, SD Biotechnologies filed suit before the Seoul Central District Court, seeking an order requiring LAP F&C to transfer the trademark ownership as stipulated in the agreements.

On 5 June 2020, the Seoul Central District Court issued a civil judgment on the request for trademark transfer registration, supporting SD Biotechnologies' claim for trademark transfer. Dissatisfied with part of the first-instance judgment, LAP F&C appealed to the Korean Patent Court.

On 19 Aug. 2021, the Korean Patent Court issued a second-instance judgment, upholding the trademark transfer ruling. Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, LAP F&C filed an appeal to the Korean Supreme Court.

On 30 Dec. 2021, the Korean Supreme Court issued a third-instance judgment, rejecting LAP F&C's appeal. This judgment became final and effective.

According to the Korean judgments, LAP F&C should transfer all the involved trademarks registered in China to SD Biotechnologies. Given that the trademark change registration procedures need to be handled at the China National Intellectual Property Administration, SD Biotechnologies applied to the Beijing Court for recognition and enforcement of the Korean judgments.

In December 2024, the Beijing Court ruled to recognize and enforce the two Korean judgments—the judgment of the Korean Supreme Court (case no. 2021Da273271), and that of the Seoul Central District Court (case no 2019GaHap538710).

2. Court views

The Beijing Court noted that China and the Republic of Korea have not concluded or jointly participated in any international treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments,[i] so the review should be based on the principle of reciprocity.

After ascertaining that civil and commercial judgments issued by Chinese courts “can be recognized and enforced in the Republic of Korea in accordance with the Korean laws”, the court determined that “a de jure reciprocity relationship exists” between China and Korea.

Upon examination, the said Korean judgments do not violate the basic principles of Chinese law or the state sovereignty, security, or public interests. After reporting to the Supreme People's Court for approval, the Beijing Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Korean judgments.

3. Comments

Reciprocity seems to be an eternal theme in the very field of foreign judgments recognition and enforcement. It is especially true for three East Asia jurisdictions- China, South Korea, and Japan.

Reciprocity seems to be an eternal theme in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, particularly among the three East Asian jurisdictions: China, South Korea, and Japan.

Interestingly, on the issue of reciprocity, Sino-Japanese relation and Sino-Korean relation present a stark contrast—one negative, the other positive.

On one hand, a vicious cycle of deadlock has long persisted between China and Japan. For a considerable period (and some argue even to this day), the Sino-Japanese impasse due to reciprocity has remained unbreakable, with no substantial progress in the recognition and enforcement of monetary judgments between the two sides. Whether the recent breakthrough in bankruptcy (In re Shanghai International Corporation (2021) Hu 03 Xie Wai Ren No.1) can serve as a key to breaking this deadlock remains to be seen.

On the other hand, the reciprocal relationship between China and South Korea, after an early period of uncertainty, has steadily improved since 2019. The early relationship was fraught with ambiguity, and once teetered on the brink of collapse. In 2011 and 2015, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court in China rejected two Korean judgments on the grounds of lacking reciprocity.[ii] In contrast, as early as 1999, the Seoul District Court in Korea recognized a Chinese court judgment,[iii] and in 2015, the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court again recognized a Chinese judgment[iv]—likely without knowledge of the aforementioned Shenzhen and Shenyang decisions or the stance of Chinese courts. As Prof. Kwang Hyun Suk pointed out, “if the Korean judges had known the position of the Chinese courts which refused to recognize a Korean judgment, they would have also refused to recognize the Chinese judgment in question”.[v] Whether due to the lag in judicial information exchange at that time, the “insensitivity” of Korean courts or the parties' lawyers, or the timely follow-up by Chinese courts upon discovering that Korean courts had already taken the first step, in 2019, the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court in China confirmed the existence of reciprocity between China and South Korea,[vi] reversing the situation. In 2019, the Daegu High Court in Korea recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment; [vii]in 2020, the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court and Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court successively recognized and enforced Korean judgments based on reciprocity,[viii] solidifying the reciprocal relationship between China and South Korea and fostering a positive cycle.

In China, the reciprocity standard has been progressively liberalized since the late last century, evolving through multiple stages from insisting on the de facto reciprocity—where the other party must “take the first step”—to more diverse criteria. Today, following the introduction of China’s new reciprocity criteria in 2022, the criteria include three tests: de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment. The first of these—de jure reciprocity—was applied in the case discussed here.

The de jure reciprocity used in this case examines the laws of the state of origin to assess the feasibility of Chinese court judgments being recognized and enforced there, without requiring prior precedents of that state recognizing Chinese judgments.

Clearly, this represents a more liberal, inclusive, and open stance on judicial assistance, further promoting the circulation of judgments between China and South Korea and enhancing judicial cooperation. One hopes that this upward spiral of positive momentum will one day be replicated between China and Japan.

Photo by Lauren Seo on Unsplash

[i] For the List of China's Bilateral Treaties on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Included), please click HERE.

[ii] See Spring Comm Corporation v. Piao Zonggen (2011) Shen Zhong Fa Min Yi Chu Zi No. 45 ((2011) 深中法民一初字第45号), Zhang Xiaoxi v. Gui Yunfeng (2015) Shen Zhong Min Si Te Zi No. 2 ((2015) 沈中民四特字第2号).

[iii] Docket No.: 99 Gahap 26253.

[iv] Docket No.: 2015Gahap936.

[v] See Kwang Hyun Suk, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments between China, Japan and South Korea in the New Era: South Korean Law Perspective, 13 FRONTIERS L. CHINA 171(June 2018).

[vi] See Cui v. Yin (2018) Lu 02 Xie Wai Ren No. 6 ((2018) 鲁02协外认6号).

[vii] See Lee Won June v. Park Kyun Geu, No.: 선 고 2018나23101 집행판결.

[viii] See Pektor Art Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Chuangyi Baby Education Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (2019) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 17 ((2019) 沪01协外认17号), SD Biotechnologies Co., Ltd v. 99 Trade Co., Ltd (2019) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No.3 ((2019) 京04协外认3号).

Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌

China Legal Trends