# Trademark Similarity: Examining a Judicial Decision

The plaintiff argued that the registered mark resembled the dominant elements of earlier registrations 1 through 9. Those elements combine two opposing “e” shapes, open at the outer sides and without a central horizontal line. The registered mark instead depicts the eighth Greek letter, theta.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/805150

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Examining a Judicial Decision The plaintiff argued that the registered mark resembled the dominant elements of earlier registrations 1 through 9. Those elements combine two opposing “e” shapes, open at the outer sides and without a central horizontal line. The registered mark instead depicts the eighth Greek letter, theta. Trademarks 2023.02.28 published IPLEX 2 min read 2010 Heo 1695 Trademark registration invalidation Earlier registered marks 1–5 Earlier registered marks 6 and 7 Earlier registered marks 8 and 9 Registered trademark Mark [Similarity of the marks] The plaintiff argued that the registered mark and the dominant elements of earlier marks 1–9 were similar. The court disagreed. The earlier device consists of two opposing “e” shapes, open on the outer sides and without a continuous horizontal line through the middle. The registered mark consists of two adjoining theta-like shapes, closed on both sides and crossed by a horizontal line, resembling sleepy eyes. These differences create clearly different overall impressions. The registered mark has no particular pronunciation or concept that can be compared with those of the earlier marks. [Decisions] The marks are visually dissimilar and therefore not similar, regardless of whether their designated goods are similar. 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: A Figurative-Mark Case ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: Gyeongju Bread ↗ 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/805150
- 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/807166
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/804227
- 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