# Trademark Similarity: A Figurative-Mark Case

The analysis considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively, as a whole and through separate observation. A shared dominant visual impression can be important, particularly when the marks are used on the same goods.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/807166

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: A Figurative-Mark Case The analysis considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively, as a whole and through separate observation. A shared dominant visual impression can be important, particularly when the marks are used on the same goods. Trademarks 2023.03.03 published IPLEX 2 min read 2011 Hu 1548 Trademark scope confirmation [Principles of Judgment] Trademark similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept, considering the marks as encountered separately. For figurative marks, the dominant visual impression is particularly important. Mark under review Earlier registered mark Registered trademark Mark [Comparison of appearance] Both devices depict an anchor with a circular ring and matching overall arrangement of shank, arms and curved ends. They differ in details such as the shape and thickness of the lines, whether the ring is open, the relative thickness of the arms, color and lettering on the right arm. [Decisions] The devices create similar dominant visual impressions. Use on identical or similar goods could confuse consumers or traders as to source, so the court found the marks 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 Case: M Plus ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: Examining a Judicial Decision ↗ 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/807166
- 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/808205
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/805150
- 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