Court Rules in Favor of Family in Copyright Lawsuit Over 'Dokgo Tak' Character

The bereaved family partially won a copyright lawsuit against a snack company over the cartoon character 'Dokgo Tak,' which was popular in the 1970s and 1980s.

According to the legal community on the 28th, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 63 (Presiding Judge Park Chan-seok) ruled partially in favor of the bereaved family of the late cartoonist Lee Sang-moo (real name Park No-cheol) in a lawsuit filed against Company A, which produces and sells snacks, seeking an injunction against copyright infringement.

The late artist Sangmu Lee (real name: Nocheol Park).

The court ordered Company A to pay the bereaved family 25 million won and prohibited the production, sale, distribution, export, and exhibition of snack and candy products featuring four types of Dokgo Tak characters on the packaging.

However, the court ruled that the moral rights to the work, which the bereaved family claimed were infringed, expire upon the artist's death and therefore cannot be subject to damages. Additionally, the court dismissed the injunction request for some illustrations on the grounds that they were never actually used.

Cartoonist Lee Sang-moo signed a license agreement in September 2005 with Hong Mo, the wife of Company A's CEO, and drew 16 Dokgo Tak illustrations until 2009. Hong registered three trademarks made from the Dokgo Tak illustrations under her own name and transferred the trademark rights to Company A in 2018. Company A used the Dokgo Tak character on products such as 'Nostalgic Dalgona' and 'Old-fashioned Peanut Caramel' from 2009 until last year.

After Lee Sang-moo passed away in 2016, his daughter Park Seul-gi, CEO of Dokgo Tak Company and heir to the intellectual property rights, signed a new license agreement with Hong in 2017, but the contract was not renewed a year later and thus ended.

Despite this, Company A continued to use the Dokgo Tak character, prompting Park to file a lawsuit in 2020 claiming unauthorized use and partial unauthorized alteration of the character, infringing intellectual property rights, moral rights, and publicity rights, seeking a production ban and partial damages amounting to 100 million won.

Company A countered, stating that they provided ideas for the illustrations, held joint copyright, and paid a total of 22 million won at 1 to 2 million won per illustration.

However, the court found no concrete evidence that Company A provided ideas or was responsible for planning, and ruled it reasonable to recognize Park, who inherited the rights, as the intellectual property rights holder.

The court also noted that Company A failed to report sales performance as required and that although they were supposed to pay 2.5% of the wholesale price as compensation for character use, they only paid 1 million won during the Lunar New Year and Chuseok holidays from 2005 to 2017.

Both parties appealed the first-instance ruling.