# Trademark Similarity: A Summary of the Court’s Approach

The applied-for mark combines wording with simple green and blue geometric elements. The analysis considers whether those common shapes contribute distinctiveness to the mark.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/812997

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: A Summary of the Court’s Approach The applied-for mark combines wording with simple green and blue geometric elements. The analysis considers whether those common shapes contribute distinctiveness to the mark. Trademarks 2023.03.15 published IPLEX 2 min read 2008 Heo 2855 Trademark refusal Mark Earlier registered Trademark 1 The Earlier registered Trademark 2 The Earlier registered Trademark 3 Applied for trademark [Decisions] The applied-for mark combines wording with repeated green and blue geometric shapes on both sides. Although the shapes occupy more space than the wording, they are ordinary circles and rectangles without a distinctive design. Their repetition creates no particular concept and does not absorb or replace the wording's meaning. Instead, it makes the wording stand out. The court therefore regarded the shapes as secondary or decorative elements, rather than the dominant element. [Whether the wording can be considered separately] The wording consists of a large “P” on the left and “PHOENIX” and “CONTACT” in two lines on the right. “PHOENIX” denotes the mythical bird and “CONTACT” denotes contact or communication. Their combination does not create a new concept, so “PHOENIX” may be perceived separately. [Comparison of the marks] When the applied-for mark is referred to as “PHOENIX”, its pronunciation and concept are identical to those of the earlier marks. Some designated goods also overlap. [Decisions] The marks are similar, and some of their designated goods are identical or 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 Certification as an Intellectual Property Instructor ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: JS Jangsu Gudeul ↗ 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/812997
- 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/816824
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/812139
- 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