# Trademark Similarity Case: JS Jangsu Gudeul

A mark combining words or graphics need not always be pronounced as a whole. Where the elements are not naturally inseparable, a distinctive part may determine how consumers refer to the mark.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/812139

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: JS Jangsu Gudeul A mark combining words or graphics need not always be pronounced as a whole. Where the elements are not naturally inseparable, a distinctive part may determine how consumers refer to the mark. Trademarks 2023.03.14 published IPLEX 4 min read 2010 Heo 9224 Trademark registration invalidation [Principles of Judgment] A composite mark may be perceived through one of its distinctive components unless the components are inseparably combined. If a mark has more than one possible pronunciation or concept, similarity in one of them may support a finding that the marks are similar. Goods classes facilitate registration administration; they do not determine the legal scope of similarity. Similarity of goods depends on whether use of identical or similar marks could suggest a common source, considering their nature, form, purpose, producers, sales channels and consumers. Comparison of trademarks Registered trademark Mark [Judgment] 1. Whether the sign is similar “JS” is perceived as the English initials of “Jangsu” and has weak independent distinctiveness. “Jangsu” and “Gudeul” do not form an inseparable new concept. The registered mark may therefore be referred to by the distinctive “Jangsu” element alone. The comparison mark's wording and device can also be considered separately. The phrase meaning “e-hot bed” describes the quality or function of the stone beds and is weakly distinctive. “Jangsu stone bed” is naturally understood as “Jangsu” plus the generic name “stone bed”, so “Jangsu” is also its dominant element. Both marks may be referred to as “Jangsu”, giving them the same pronunciation and concept. The court found the marks similar. 2. Designated Goods. The registered mark's listed goods include stands, lecterns, mirrors, stools, divans, chests, lockers, benches, screens, cabinets, shelves, sofas, tables, desks, chairs, racks, wardrobes, display cases and other household or office furniture. The comparison mark covers stone beds. These goods share furnishing, storage, seating, resting or decorative functions, and their producers, sellers and consumers overlap. The court held that use of similar marks on these goods could cause confusion as to source and found the goods similar. [Decisions] Both the marks and 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 Summary of the Court’s Approach ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: UGLYDOLL ↗ 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/812139
- 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/812997
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/811310
- 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