# Trademark Similarity Case: DEQUINONE

Under the cited Article 7(1) provision, the registered mark must be similar to the mark used for comparison. Similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning for goods of the same kind.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/774057

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: DEQUINONE Under the cited Article 7(1) provision, the registered mark must be similar to the mark used for comparison. Similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning for goods of the same kind. Trademarks 2023.01.05 published IPLEX 2 min read 2010 Heo 2803 Trademark registration invalidation [General principles of similarity assessment] Under the former Trademark Act provision applied in this case, the marks must be compared as a whole to determine whether they are similar. Earlier registered mark Registered trademark DECAQUINON DEQUINONE [Assessment] 1. Appearance Both marks use ordinary, unstylized letters and share “DE” and “QUINON”. However, they differ in length, the additional “CA” and their endings, producing different overall appearances. 2. Pronunciation “DEQUINONE” and “DECAQUINON” have different pronunciations, particularly because of the additional “CA” syllable in the earlier mark. 3. Concept Both are coined terms without dictionary meanings, so no definite conceptual comparison is possible. 4. Conclusion The marks have no comparable concepts and differ in appearance and pronunciation. The court found them dissimilar. 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 Appointment as a PPS Evaluator for AI and IoT ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: NOVATEX ↗ 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/774057
- 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/774780
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/773293
- 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