# Trademark Similarity Case: Foodgen

The assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning, the overall impression on ordinary consumers and traders, and the likelihood of confusion about commercial origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/781601

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: Foodgen The assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning, the overall impression on ordinary consumers and traders, and the likelihood of confusion about commercial origin. Trademarks 2023.01.18 published IPLEX 2 min read 2008 Heo 1104 Trademark refusal [General principles of similarity assessment] Trademark similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept, considering whether consumers or traders may confuse the source of the goods. [Earlier registered mark] [Applied-for mark] [Comparison of the marks] 1. Appearance Both are word marks: the application uses the Latin lettering “FOODGEN,” while the earlier registration uses Korean wording pronounced “Pureujen.” Their appearances differ. 2. The Pronunciation “FOODGEN” would be pronounced in Korean as “pudeujen”, while the earlier mark is pronounced “pureujen”. They have the same number of syllables and differ only in the consonant of the second syllable, producing similar overall sounds. 3. The concept Neither mark has a definite concept for comparison. [Decisions] When pronounced “Pudeujen” and “Pureujen” and used for identical or similar goods, the marks may cause consumers or traders to confuse the source because of their phonetic similarity. The court therefore found them 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: Simvast versus SIMVASTA ↗ Older Trademark Complaint over “News Factory”: TBS and Kim Eo-jun ↗ 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/781601
- 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/781927
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/780751
- 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