# Trademark Similarity: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin

A composite mark need not always be understood or pronounced in full. Where its elements are not naturally inseparable, comparison may focus on a distinctive part.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796667

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin A composite mark need not always be understood or pronounced in full. Where its elements are not naturally inseparable, comparison may focus on a distinctive part. Trademarks 2023.02.15 published IPLEX 3 min read 2008 Heo 13275 Trademark registration invalidation [Principles of Judgment] A composite mark need not always be perceived through every component. A distinctive component may be considered separately unless the components are inseparably combined. Even if there is a similar part between the contrasting trademarks, it cannot be called a similar trademark if it is unlikely to be segregated by itself or if it can be clearly avoided by observing the source as a whole. Applied for trademark Registered trademark Mark [Similarity assessment] 1. Appearance The registered mark combines the Korean wording “Sooryehan”, followed after a space by “Biyun” and its Chinese-character form “飛潤” in parentheses. The earlier-filed mark consists of the Korean wording “Biyunjin” in a Gothic typeface. The marks therefore differ in appearance. 2. Pronunciation and concept In the registered mark, “Sooryehan” functions as an adjective modifying “Biyun”, so the latter may be perceived separately. By contrast, “Biyunjin” is written continuously in matching type, and “Biyun” is not a familiar expression whose meaning would naturally encourage separation. The marks are therefore perceived as “Biyun” and “Biyunjin”, with different pronunciations and concepts. [Decisions] The marks differ in appearance, pronunciation and concept. The court found them dissimilar. 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 Figurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: 700 ↗ 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/796667
- 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/797197
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796069
- 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