# Trademark Similarity Case: PRO-PAD

Similarity depends on appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, and whether consumers or traders may confuse their commercial origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/801987

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: PRO-PAD Similarity depends on appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, and whether consumers or traders may confuse their commercial origin. Trademarks 2023.02.24 published IPLEX 2 min read [Principles of Judgment] Trademark similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept. A shared element does not make marks similar where consumers are unlikely to perceive it separately or where the overall impressions clearly avoid confusion. Earlier registered Trademark 1 The Earlier registered Trademark 2 Applied for trademark Applied for trademark Mark [Similarity assessment] 1. Pronunciation Although the hyphen in “PRO-PAD” could suggest separate elements, its Korean pronunciation is a short four syllables and “PAD” has no exceptional distinctiveness. Consumers are therefore unlikely to omit “PRO” and refer to the mark only as “PAD”. “PRO-PAD” and the earlier mark's Korean pronunciation “ped” are not similar in pronunciation. 2. Appearance and concept The marks differ in appearance. Their concepts also differ: the applied-for mark suggests a professional pad, while earlier mark 1 refers to a naturally formed aggregate of soil particles. [Decisions] The marks differ in appearance, concept and pronunciation. Even on identical or similar goods, they are unlikely to cause confusion as to source. 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 Case: Gyeongju Bread ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: F1X versus F1 and Other Marks ↗ 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/801987
- 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/804227
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800780
- 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