# Trademark Similarity Case: UGLYDOLL

Compare the marks' appearance, sound and meaning as ordinary consumers and traders perceive them, then assess whether their overall impressions create a likelihood of confusion about the goods' origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/811310

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: UGLYDOLL Compare the marks' appearance, sound and meaning as ordinary consumers and traders perceive them, then assess whether their overall impressions create a likelihood of confusion about the goods' origin. Trademarks 2023.03.13 published IPLEX 4 min read 2010 Heo 3677 Trademark refusal [Principles of Judgment] Similarity is assessed by considering the marks' appearance, pronunciation and concept as a whole. A distinctive part of a composite mark may be considered separately where its elements are not inseparably combined. Earlier registered mark Applied for trademark Mark Designated Goods Class 18: riding saddles. Class 28: balloons, stuffed toys, plastic toys, toy sets, mascot dolls, wooden toys, vaulting horses, children's rocking horses and toys. Classes 16, 25 and 28: stationery, clothing, and dolls and accessories, among other goods. [Similarity of the marks] 1. Appearance The applied-for mark consists of “UGLYDOLL” in uppercase letters. The earlier mark combines a gorilla device with the handwritten word “ugly”. They differ in their devices, letter count and lettering. 2. Pronunciation and concept The applied-for mark uses double-line lettering, with the “O” stylized to resemble an eye. Viewed as a whole, consumers would still recognize the stylized character as the “O” in “DOLL”. The mark may be read as “UGLYDOLL”, but “DOLL” is generic or weakly distinctive for dolls and accessories. “UGLY” can therefore function as its distinctive component. The earlier mark combines a gorilla with a small “ugly” inscription. It may be perceived as “ugly gorilla” or simply “ugly”. The word remains distinctive despite its smaller size, and the device and wording do not form an inseparable new concept. Consumers may refer to the mark by “ugly” alone. If the applied-for mark is shortened to “UGLY”, it has the same pronunciation and concept as the earlier mark's “ugly” element. [Designated goods] The applied-for mark's dolls and accessories and the earlier mark's mascot dolls are identical or similar goods. [Decisions] Despite their different appearances, the marks have similar pronunciations and concepts. 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: JS Jangsu Gudeul ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: LUISE versus MS. LOUISE ↗ 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/811310
- 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/812139
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/810292
- 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