# Trademark Similarity Case: Gyeongju Bread

The wording in both signs consists of the geographic name “Gyeongju” and the generic term “bread,” which lack distinctiveness on their own. The comparison therefore turns to the graphics, including the registered mark's stylized face-pattern roof tile and cloud-like features.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/804227

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: Gyeongju Bread The wording in both signs consists of the geographic name “Gyeongju” and the generic term “bread,” which lack distinctiveness on their own. The comparison therefore turns to the graphics, including the registered mark's stylized face-pattern roof tile and cloud-like features. Trademarks 2023.02.27 published IPLEX 1 min read 2009 Heo 4445 Trademark scope confirmation Mark under review Registered trademark Mark [Comparison] The wording “Gyeongju bread” combines a well-known geographical name with the generic name of the goods and is not distinctive by itself. The registered device uses a distinctive stylization of a face-pattern roof-end tile combined with traditional cloud motifs. The mark under review instead uses a photograph or realistic depiction of an excavated Gyeongju tile. Their appearances differ markedly. Despite sharing the general concept of a face-pattern roof tile, the marks are sufficiently different overall to avoid confusion as to source. [Decisions] The mark under review and the registered mark are 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: Examining a Judicial Decision ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: PRO-PAD ↗ 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/804227
- 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/805150
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/801987
- 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