# Trademark Similarity Case: Enlux

The applied-for mark comprises three Korean syllables, “Enlux,” while the earlier mark comprises the five Latin letters “emnux.” Their different scripts distinguish their appearance. Both are coined expressions without a particular meaning, so a conceptual comparison cannot be made.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/782825

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: Enlux The applied-for mark comprises three Korean syllables, “Enlux,” while the earlier mark comprises the five Latin letters “emnux.” Their different scripts distinguish their appearance. Both are coined expressions without a particular meaning, so a conceptual comparison cannot be made. Trademarks 2023.01.20 published IPLEX 2 min read 2008 Heo 6093 Trademark refusal (Earlier registered trademark) Designated goods: electronic-circuit learning and control simulators. [Applied for trademark] Designated Goods: Video Screen, Projector Screen, etc. [Comparison] 1) Appearance and concept The applied-for mark comprises three Korean syllables, “Enlux,” while the earlier mark comprises the five Latin letters “emnux.” Their different scripts distinguish their appearance. Both are coined expressions without a particular meaning, so a conceptual comparison cannot be made. 2) Pronunciation The applied-for mark is pronounced “Enlux”, and Korean consumers would generally pronounce the earlier mark “Emnux”. The initial consonant and vowel of the first syllable, the vowel and final consonant of the second syllable, and the third syllable coincide. The differences are the final n/m sounds in the first syllable and the initial r/n sounds in the second. These differences are not clearly distinguished by ear under ordinary Korean pronunciation habits. The marks therefore produce a very similar overall auditory impression and are phonetically similar. 3) Designated Goods The marks share goods including electronic-circuit learning and control simulators, recorded computer operating programs, computer access devices, printed circuits, computers, electronic anti-theft devices, electronic signal transmitters, inverters and control panels. [Decisions] The marks are similar and some designated goods are identical. Registration was refused under the applicable former Trademark Act provision. Former Trademark Act Article 7(1), as applicable to the case, listed marks ineligible for registration notwithstanding Article 6. The cited text reflects amendments through 3 January 2007. 7. Marks identical or similar to another person's earlier-filed registered mark and used for identical or similar goods, excluding the specified geographical-indication collective marks. 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: Seolhwang ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: Simvast versus SIMVASTA ↗ 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/782825
- 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/783898
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/781927
- 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