# Trademark Similarity: Simvast versus SIMVASTA

Designated goods: adjuvants for cancer treatment, cell-regeneration preparations, anticancer drugs, biological preparations, tranquilizers, peripheral-nervous-system medicines, anti-inflammatory medicines, medical diagnostic preparations, circulatory-system medicines and tumor-treatment medicines (Class 5, Schedule 1 under Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act).

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/781927

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Simvast versus SIMVASTA Designated goods: adjuvants for cancer treatment, cell-regeneration preparations, anticancer drugs, biological preparations, tranquilizers, peripheral-nervous-system medicines, anti-inflammatory medicines, medical diagnostic preparations, circulatory-system medicines and tumor-treatment medicines (Class 5, Schedule 1 under Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act). Trademarks 2023.01.19 published IPLEX 2 min read 2005 Heo 5860 Trademark refusal [Applied-for mark] Mark Designated goods: adjuvants for cancer treatment, cell-regeneration preparations, anticancer drugs, biological preparations, tranquilizers, peripheral-nervous-system medicines, anti-inflammatory medicines, medical diagnostic preparations, circulatory-system medicines and tumor-treatment medicines (Class 5, Schedule 1 under Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act). [Applied-for mark] Class 5: respiratory medicines, central and peripheral nervous system medicines, antibiotics, chemotherapy and oncology medicines, anti-inflammatory medicines, gastrointestinal medicines and medicines for sensory organs. The applied-for mark “Simvast” and the earlier mark “SIMVASTA” are pronounced in Korean as “simbasteu” and “simbasta”. Their pronunciations are very similar despite the different final vowel. Even doctors and pharmacists, who purchase the designated goods professionally, may confuse similar pronunciations. Their expertise alone did not eliminate the likelihood of confusion in this case. The applied-for mark is similar to the earlier mark. 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 ↗ TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Trademark Similarity Case: Enlux ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: Foodgen ↗ 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/781927
- 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/contact
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/782825
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/781601
- 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