# Trademark Coexistence Consent: Can a Similar Mark Be Registered? A clearance search may reveal an existing registration that is identical or similar to the mark you intend to use. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1524571 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Coexistence Consent: Can a Similar Mark Be Registered? A clearance search may reveal an existing registration that is identical or similar to the mark you intend to use. Trademarks 2026.08.19 published IPLEX 6 min read A clearance search may reveal an existing registration that is identical or similar to the mark you intend to use. The first thought that comes to mind at this time is: “If a similar trademark is already registered, can’t I register my trademark?” In the past, when trademark registration was rejected because it was similar to a previously registered trademark, it was necessary to respond by changing the trademark or resolving the rights relationship with the previously registered trademark. However, with the implementation of the trademark coexistence consent system on May 1, 2024, a new method has been prepared that can be used in such situations. Today, we will look at what the trademark coexistence consent system is, when it can be used, and what you should pay attention to when submitting a coexistence agreement. What is the trademark coexistence consent system? The trademark coexistence consent system is a system that allows, if the owner of a earlier registered or first-filed trademark agrees to the registration of a later-filed trademark, a later-filed trademark that is similar to the earlier registered or first-filed trademark can also be registered under certain conditions. Let me give you an example. Let's assume that Company A first registered the trademark 'ABC'. Afterwards, Company B applied for a trademark similar to 'ABC'. If the two trademarks are similar and the designated goods are also similar, previously, there was a possibility that Company B's trademark would be rejected due to Company A's earlier registered trademark. However, if Company A agrees to register Company B's trademark and submits a coexistence agreement that meets the requirements set forth in the Trademark Act, Company B's trademark can also be registered. In other words, the trademark coexistence consent system can be understood as a system that respects the will of the existing trademark holder and allows the coexistence of two trademarks within a certain range, rather than uniformly preventing the registration of later-filed trademarks just because there is a earlier registered trademark. Not all reasons for refusal can be resolved through coexistence agreement. There is one thing to be careful about here. Just because the trademark coexistence consent system has been implemented does not mean that all trademarks similar to earlier registered trademarks can be registered through coexistence agreement. The Trademark Coexistence Agreement is a document intended to resolve reasons for rejection based on a specific earlier registered or previously filed trademark under the Trademark Act. Therefore, in an actual application, you must first review whether the earlier registered trademark and the later-filed trademark are actually similar, whether the designated goods are similar, and what kind of rights relationship the earlier registered trademark has. Additionally, even if you submit a trademark coexistence agreement, if there are other reasons for rejection, you must respond separately to those reasons for rejection. In other words, “Once you receive the coexistence agreement, trademark registration is unconditionally possible.” It should not be understood as such. When can I submit the trademark coexistence agreement? The trademark coexistence agreement can be submitted as an attachment to the application or written opinion. Additionally, if you have not been able to submit a coexistence agreement or wish to amend the contents of a coexistence agreement that has already been submitted, you may submit it by attaching it to the correction within the period stipulated by the Trademark Act. Therefore, even if a coexistence agreement was not obtained at the time of applying for a trademark, if grounds for rejection due to a earlier registered trademark arise during the subsequent examination process, the possibility of coexistence agreement can be reviewed. However, the specific submission period and procedures may vary depending on the progress stage of the application, so if you receive a notice of reasons for rejection, you must be careful not to miss the response period. What information should be included in the coexistence agreement? A consent form must do more than simply state, “I agree to registration of the trademark.” It must meet the format and required information specified in the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act. A coexistence agreement typically includes the following: · Name or corporation name · Signature or seal · Patent customer number · Registration number or application number · Goods or services for which registration is consented to · Confirmation of the entry in the trademark register · Date of consent, etc. In particular, it is important to clearly specify which trademark and which designated good you are consenting to. Although it is possible to agree to coexistence for all designated goods of a later application trademark, it is also possible to agree to coexistence only for some designated goods. Therefore, when writing a coexistence agreement, you must check all designated goods of the later-filed trademark and accurately specify the actual scope of agreement. Not all coexistence agreements are recognized This is an area that requires particular attention when utilizing the trademark coexistence consent system. ① Conditional coexistence consent forms are not recognized. There may be cases where the holder of a previously registered trademark agrees to the registration of a later applied trademark and attaches certain conditions. For example, “I agree only for three years.” “I agree on the condition that it be used only in certain areas.” “In certain cases, this consent is deemed to have no legal effect.” Conditions such as these are attached. However, coexistence agreements containing conditions such as deadlines, regional restrictions, or partial exclusion of legal effects are not recognized. Therefore, even if a separate agreement has been reached with the earlier registered trademark holder, it is necessary to check whether the coexistence agreement itself has been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements. ② Comprehensive coexistence consent is also not recognized. Coexistence consent must be consent for a specific trademark application. Therefore, the earlier registered trademark owner “agrees to the registration of all trademarks applied for in the future.” A comprehensive agreement is not acceptable. The coexistence agreement must include the relevant registration number or application number, except in special cases. In other words, coexistence consent must be granted for specific applications and designated goods. This part is also important in practical terms. Even if you receive consent from the previously registered trademark holder, you must separately check whether the consent form is in a form that can be used for the actual application. ③ If both the trademark and the designated good are the same, consent to coexistence is not recognized. This is one of the most important restrictions in the trademark coexistence consent system. If the marks of the earlier registered or first-filed trademark and the later-filed trademark are the same and the designated goods are the same, consent to coexistence is not recognized. For example, even if you reapply for the same trademark as a previously registered trademark for the same designated good and obtain the consent of the previously registered trademark owner, you cannot use the trademark coexistence consent system. Therefore, when reviewing the trademark coexistence consent system, you must not simply check “Does the other party agree?” but also check whether the trademarks are the same or similar and whether the designated goods are the same or similar. The trademark coexistence consent system is a system that went into effect on May 1, 2024. It is a system designed to allow trademarks to coexist through the consent of existing rights holders when it is difficult to register a later-filed trademark simply because it is similar to a earlier registered or earlier-filed trademark. If you discover a similar earlier registered trademark, rather than simply giving up trademark registration, it is important to comprehensively review whether the trademark is actually a prior trademark for rejection, whether the trademark coexistence consent system can be utilized, and the scope of designated goods that require coexistence consent. If you find a similar earlier registered trademark, please first check with an expert to determine the possibility of registration and countermeasures before giving up trademark registration. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Designs & trade marks ↗ ON THIS PAGE What is the trademark coexistence consent system? Not all reasons for refusal can be resolved through coexistence agreement. When can I submit the trademark coexistence agreement? What information should be included in the coexistence agreement? Not all coexistence agreements are recognized TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer AI Paper Analysis: In-Place Test-Time Training ↗ Older Thailand Trademark Applications: Filing, Registration, Renewal and Management ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.01 TikTok for confectionery: dilution can prevent registration in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10379 explains why different goods and later commercial success did not overcome the reputation and distinctiveness of TikTok. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.30 Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후10504 separates an intention to launch from actual use and objective obstacles beyond the owner’s control. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.29 An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? The 010PAY decision, 2025허10405, considers actual transactions, revenue and the proper subject of Korean trade mark scope proceedings. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/1524571 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/trademark#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1524571#section-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1524571#section-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1524571#section-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1524571#section-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1524571#section-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1525199 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1522514 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771