# Figurative Trademark Similarity: Case-Law Summary Former Article 7(1) of the Trademark Act listed marks ineligible for registration notwithstanding Article 6. The cited text reflects amendments dated December 10, 1993; August 22, 1997; February 3, 2001; and December 31, 2004. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/798283 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Figurative Trademark Similarity: Case-Law Summary Former Article 7(1) of the Trademark Act listed marks ineligible for registration notwithstanding Article 6. The cited text reflects amendments dated December 10, 1993; August 22, 1997; February 3, 2001; and December 31, 2004. Trademarks 2023.02.17 published IPLEX 5 min read 2005 Heo 9329 Trademark registration invalidation [Statutory provisions applicable to the case] Former Article 7(1) of the Trademark Act listed marks ineligible for registration notwithstanding Article 6. The cited text reflects amendments dated December 10, 1993; August 22, 1997; February 3, 2001; and December 31, 2004. 4. Marks likely to disturb public order or accepted principles of morality. 7. Marks identical or similar to another person's earlier-filed registered mark and used for identical or similar goods, excluding the specified geographical-indication collective marks. 9. Marks identical or similar to another person's well-known mark and used for identical or similar goods, excluding geographical indications. 10. Marks likely to cause confusion with another person's well-known goods or business. 11. Marks likely to mislead as to the quality of goods or deceive consumers. 12. Marks identical or similar to a mark recognized by domestic or foreign consumers as identifying another person's goods, and used for an improper purpose such as obtaining an unfair benefit or harming that person, excluding geographical indications. [Principles of Judgment] For a mark to be likely to deceive consumers under the provision applied in this case, the earlier mark need not be famous, but must be sufficiently known in Korean trade to identify a particular source. Use of an identical or similar mark on identical or similar goods, or special circumstances suggesting use by the earlier owner, may then create a likelihood of deception. Earlier registered Trademark 1 The Earlier registered Trademark 2 Registered trademark Mark Designated Goods Medals, cufflinks, tie pins, brooches, buckles and napkin rings of precious metal, among other goods. Diamonds, coral gemstones, pearls, agate, crystal, topaz and jasper, among other goods. Earrings, buckles, belt ornaments and pins of precious metal, and tie pins, among other goods. [Similarity assessment] 1. Former Trademark Act Article 7(1), items 7, 9 and 12 Both marks consist solely of devices without a definite comparable pronunciation or concept. The earlier device overlaps two opposing stylized “C” shapes to form a central oval. The registered device places a tall diamond shape over the center of two opposing “C” shapes, obscuring any overlap and creating a dominant visual feature. The shapes and proportions also differ. The court found that these overall visual differences avoided confusion and held the marks dissimilar. 2. Former Trademark Act Article 7(1), item 4 The marks have no comparable pronunciation or concept and differ markedly in appearance. There was also no evidence that the registered mark imitated the earlier mark. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument under this provision. 3. Former Trademark Act Article 7(1), item 10 The visual differences were substantial, and the registered mark did not readily evoke the earlier mark or suggest a close connection with its goods. The court rejected the alleged likelihood of confusion under this provision. 4. Former Trademark Act Article 7(1), item 11: likelihood of deceiving consumers The marks were not identical or similar, and there was no evidence of special circumstances suggesting that the registered mark was used by the earlier mark's owner. The court rejected this argument as well. [Decisions] Assessed objectively and as a whole from the perspective of consumers and traders, the devices did not create a likelihood of confusion. 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 Trademark Similarity: UNSTRESS versus STRESS-OUT and Another Mark ↗ Older Figurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis ↗ 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/798283 - 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/799578 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/797197 - 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