# Trademark Similarity Case: THE MAGIC BULLET

The applied-for mark and the earlier registered mark differ visually in their wording, including “THE MAGIC” and “Steam,” and in their graphic elements.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/826837

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: THE MAGIC BULLET The applied-for mark and the earlier registered mark differ visually in their wording, including “THE MAGIC” and “Steam,” and in their graphic elements. Trademarks 2023.04.10 published IPLEX 3 min read 2005 Heo 10343 Trademark refusal Earlier registered mark Applied for trademark Mark [Similarity of the marks] 1. Appearance The marks contain different additional words: “MAGIC” and “Steam”. Their lettering and overall appearances differ. 2. Pronunciation and concept In the applied-for mark, “THE” is an ordinary definite article. “MAGIC” and “BULLET” are familiar English words and are not joined by a hyphen. “MAGIC” modifies “BULLET” and appears in many registered marks in the relevant goods classes, giving it relatively weak distinctiveness. “BULLET”, meaning a projectile or similar small object, has no direct descriptive relationship to the designated goods and is more distinctive. Consumers may therefore refer to the mark as “BULLET”, as well as “MAGIC BULLET”. In the earlier mark, a repeated-circle device separates “Bullet” from the other wording. “Bullet” is also darker and more prominent than “Steam”. For the designated electrical cleaners, “Steam” describes a function of the goods, while “Bullet” is relatively distinctive. Consumers may perceive “Steam” as identifying a product in the “Bullet” family and refer to the mark as “Bullet” alone. [Decisions] When shortened to “BULLET” and “Bullet”, the marks have the same pronunciation and concept. The court therefore found the marks similar overall despite their different appearances. 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 How to Respond Effectively to a Patent Infringement Warning Letter ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: IBK ↗ 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/826837
- 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/830474
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/825144
- 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