# Trademark Similarity Case: 700

Service-mark similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning, focusing on how consumers and traders perceive the source of the services.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796069

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: 700 Service-mark similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning, focusing on how consumers and traders perceive the source of the services. Trademarks 2023.02.14 published IPLEX 3 min read 2008 Heo 3766 Trademark refusal [Principles of Judgment] Service-mark similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept, considering whether ordinary consumers or traders may confuse the source of the services. Earlier-filed service mark Applied-for service mark Mark [Comparison] 1. Appearance The applied-for mark places a large “700” and “MARKET” inside a three-colored trapezoid. The earlier-filed mark combines “HAPPY” and “700” in different colors, with a green stylized “Y”. Apart from “700”, their devices, colors and wording differ, giving them different overall appearances. 2. Pronunciation and concept The applied-for mark's device can be separated from its wording. “MARKET” describes the nature or purpose of the services and is less prominent, leaving “700” as the distinctive element. In the earlier mark, “HAPPY” and “700” are visually separable and do not create an inseparable new concept. It may therefore be referred to by either component. When both marks are referred to as “700”, their pronunciation and concept coincide. 3. Designated services Both marks designate supermarket management services. [Decisions] The marks share the same pronunciation and concept when referred to as “700”, and their services are identical. The court found them similar because use together could cause confusion as to the source of the services. 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: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: Key Judicial Findings ↗ 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/796069
- 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/796667
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/795539
- 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