# Trademark Similarity: A Pictorial-Mark Case

① Both marks consist of stylized anchor designs and do not readily evoke a name or concept other than an anchor. ② The court considered the written and visual evidence in Exhibits 10 through 93, including their subparts, together with the overall arguments.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/792119

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: A Pictorial-Mark Case ① Both marks consist of stylized anchor designs and do not readily evoke a name or concept other than an anchor. ② The court considered the written and visual evidence in Exhibits 10 through 93, including their subparts, together with the overall arguments. Trademarks 2023.02.07 published IPLEX 2 min read 2011 Heo 446 Trademark registration invalidation Earlier registered mark Registered trademark Mark [Pronunciation and concept] Both marks consist solely of stylized anchor devices, which do not readily suggest a name or concept other than an anchor. However, the evidence in Exhibits 10–93, including sub-exhibits, showed that by the filing date, September 5, 2006, many anchor designs were already used on clothing with wording or other devices, and as repeated decorative patterns. Their shared anchor motif alone therefore did not establish that consumers would call or perceive both clothing marks simply as “anchor”. Their similarity should be assessed by appearance rather than pronunciation or concept. [Comparison of appearance] The earlier anchor device has a crossbar and a mostly black rope that starts on the right, curves like a reversed “S” and hangs to the right. The registered device lacks the crossbar and uses a rope alternating black and white, starting on the left, looping once and hanging to the left. These differences create distinct overall appearances. [Decisions] The devices are dissimilar, so the registered mark is not 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 ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer IP Daily Column: The Nike Shoe NFT Case ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: GRAZIA versus GRACIA ↗ 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/792119
- 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/793746
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/791422
- 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