# Trademark Similarity: Key Judicial Findings

The wording “DOHC” is unrelated to the bag and wallet retail services at issue and dominates the mark, giving it strong distinctiveness. The small bird graphic makes a limited contribution to the overall impression.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/795539

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Key Judicial Findings The wording “DOHC” is unrelated to the bag and wallet retail services at issue and dominates the mark, giving it strong distinctiveness. The small bird graphic makes a limited contribution to the overall impression. Trademarks 2023.02.13 published IPLEX 2 min read 2011 Heo 3582 Trademark refusal Earlier-used mark Applied-for service mark Mark [Comparison with the earlier-used mark] 1. Distinctiveness of the applied-for mark “DOHC” has no descriptive relationship to bag or wallet retail services and visually dominates the mark. The smaller bird device has weaker distinctiveness, given the common use of bird motifs on footwear, clothing and bags. Consumers would perceive the mark as a whole or through “DOHC”, rather than through the bird device alone. 2. Comparison of the marks 1) Appearance The applied-for mark prominently includes “DOHC”, while the earlier-used mark consists solely of a device. That difference gives them distinct appearances. 2) Pronunciation The applied-for mark would be pronounced “D-O-H-C” or a phrase combining those letters with “bird” or “eagle”. Even if the earlier device is called “bird”, “eagle” or “American Eagle”, the distinctive “D-O-H-C” wording makes the pronunciations different. 3) Concept “DOHC” abbreviates “double overhead camshaft” and may evoke an engine, unlike the earlier bird device. Consumers unfamiliar with that abbreviation might perceive only the bird or eagle concept; in that case, the concepts may coincide. [Conclusion] Although the concepts may coincide in some circumstances, the distinct appearances and pronunciations make the marks dissimilar overall. 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: 700 ↗ Older IP Daily Column: The Nike Shoe NFT Case ↗ 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/795539
- 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/796069
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/793746
- 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