# Trademark Similarity Case: NOVATEX

Trademark similarity is assessed through appearance, sound and meaning, considering the overall impression on consumers and traders and the risk of confusion about origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/773293

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: NOVATEX Trademark similarity is assessed through appearance, sound and meaning, considering the overall impression on consumers and traders and the risk of confusion about origin. Trademarks 2023.01.04 published IPLEX 3 min read 2012 Heo 5394 Trademark refusal [General principles of similarity assessment] 1. General principles for comparing marks Trademark similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept. A distinctive component may be considered separately unless the components are inseparably combined. The question is whether consumers may confuse the source of the goods. 2. General principles for comparing designated goods Goods are similar where use of identical or similar marks could suggest a common producer or seller. The assessment considers their quality, form, purpose, producers, sales channels and consumers in actual trade. [Earlier registered mark] Designated goods: gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene, diesel and industrial gasoline, among other goods. Applied-for trademark Designated goods: natural gas, including gas condensate and liquefied natural gas. [Summary of the court decision] 1. Similarity of the marks 1) Comparison of appearance The applied-for mark combines Russian and Latin lettering in two widely spaced lines, using blue lettering. These features distinguish its appearance from the earlier mark. 2) Comparison of pronunciation The Russian and Latin elements are clearly separated and create no inseparable new concept. “NOVATEK” is distinctive for the designated goods and may be perceived on its own. Its Korean pronunciation “novatek” is very close to “novateks”, the pronunciation of the earlier mark “NOVATEX”, because the final additional syllable is weakly pronounced. 3) Comparison of concepts Neither coined expression has a definite meaning, so their concepts cannot be compared. 2. Designated Goods. Although natural gas and gasoline differ in production and physical properties, both are hydrocarbon fuels used in homes, transport, factories and power generation. Their consumers overlap, making the goods highly similar in trade. 3. Conclusion Despite their different appearances, the marks have very similar pronunciations and designate highly similar goods. Use together could cause confusion as to source, so the court found the marks similar. 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 ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Trademark Similarity Case: DEQUINONE ↗ Older Comparing Dominant Trademark Elements: CIRCLE SURROUND AUTOMOTIVE versus CIRCLE ↗ 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/773293
- 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/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/774057
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/773092
- 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