# Trademark Similarity Case: NICOLE MILLER

Assess the marks objectively, as a whole and through separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning. The relevant question is whether their use for the designated goods may cause confusion about commercial origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/928360

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: NICOLE MILLER Assess the marks objectively, as a whole and through separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning. The relevant question is whether their use for the designated goods may cause confusion about commercial origin. Trademarks 2023.10.10 published IPLEX 2 min read 2008 Hu 4783 Judgment [Trademark refusal] [Legal] A shared element does not establish similarity where consumers are unlikely to perceive it separately or where the marks' overall impressions clearly distinguish their sources. Earlier registered Trademark 1 The Earlier registered Trademark 2 Applied for trademark Mark [Comparison] NICOLE MILLER shares MILLER with one earlier mark and NICOLE with another. Korean consumers would nevertheless recognize the application as a Western personal name and naturally pronounce it as Nicole Miller as a whole. [Decisions] Because the application would not naturally be divided into NICOLE or MILLER alone, its appearance, pronunciation and concept distinguished it from the earlier marks. The marks were dissimilar. 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: Whotel ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: CRYSIS ↗ 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/928360
- 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/928995
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/926636
- 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