# Figurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis

The court considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively and in the overall impression of each mark. Visual features may be particularly significant where they dominate that impression.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/797197

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Figurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis The court considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively and in the overall impression of each mark. Visual features may be particularly significant where they dominate that impression. Trademarks 2023.02.16 published IPLEX 2 min read 2008 Heo 9399 Trademark scope confirmation [Principles of Judgment] Similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept. For figurative marks, appearance creates the dominant impression. Visually different devices are dissimilar where use on the same goods would not confuse consumers as to source. Mark under review Registered trademark Mark Designated Goods Eye Cream [Comparison of the marks] Although both devices have a circular outline with floral and stem motifs, the following differences create distinct visual impressions. The registered mark is blue, while the mark under review is black. In the latter, petals surround an oval with open space and three stamens depicted as solid shapes. In the registered mark, the flower has five petals, a filled interior and stamens formed by negative space. The stems and leaves in the mark under review are abstract, whereas those in the registered mark are relatively realistic. The registered mark also has a denser overall arrangement of petals. These differences create distinct dominant visual impressions, so consumers would perceive the devices as dissimilar. [Decisions] The marks are dissimilar and would not cause confusion as to source even on identical or similar goods. 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 Trademark Similarity: Case-Law Summary ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin ↗ 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/797197
- 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/798283
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796667
- 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