# Trademark Similarity: TIMEWISE, Wise Brown and WISER

Similarity requires an objective assessment of the marks as a whole and as encountered separately. Appearance, sound and meaning inform whether the overall impressions distinguish their commercial origins.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/930470

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: TIMEWISE, Wise Brown and WISER Similarity requires an objective assessment of the marks as a whole and as encountered separately. Appearance, sound and meaning inform whether the overall impressions distinguish their commercial origins. Trademarks 2023.10.13 published IPLEX 4 min read 2003 Heo 4337 Judgment [Trademark registration invalidation] [Legal] Similarity is assessed as a whole, objectively and at separate times, considering appearance, pronunciation, concept and source confusion. A composite mark may be identified by a separable component where doing so is natural in trade. Cited mark 1 Cited mark 2 Registered trademark Wise Brown WISER TIMEWISE [Judgment] 1. Whether TIMEWISE can be separated TIMEWISE combines the familiar words TIME and WISE. Both are relatively weak, and the eight letters appear continuously in capitals without a space. Separating the mark into TIME and WISE would be unnatural in trade, so it should be assessed as a whole. 2. Comparison with cited mark 1, Wise Brown 1) Appearance Both trademarks are written in English and contain the word “wise” in common, but since the first letter that appears to be noticed is markedly different and the number of letters is different, and the case registered trademarks are all capitalized without being marked, the cited trademark 1 is between “Wise” and “Brown”, and the whole trade is not similar, as both uppercase and lowercase letters are mixed. 2 Pronunciation TIMEWISE would be pronounced as a whole. Wise Brown could be pronounced as a whole or by Wise or Brown separately. The syllable counts and overall sounds differ. 3) Concept Compared to the case registered trademark with no special concept, the cited trademark 1 has the concept of “smart brown”, so it would be difficult to compare the concept of both. ④ TIMEWISE and Wise Brown differ in appearance and pronunciation, and their concepts do not provide a basis for similarity. They are dissimilar overall. 3. Comparison with cited mark 2, WISER 1) Appearance This case registered trademark and the cited trademark 2 are both identical in that they are in English capital letters and contain “wise”, but the overall appearance will be different, since the first letters are different and the first letters are also different. 2 Pronunciation TIMEWISE and WISER have different syllable counts and overall pronunciations. 3) Concept TIMEWISE is a coined combination without a specific established concept, while WISER means more wise. The concepts do not support a finding of similarity. ④ TIMEWISE and WISER are therefore dissimilar overall. 4. Conclusion TIMEWISE was dissimilar to the earlier-filed cited marks and did not fall within the bar under former Article 8(1) of the Trademark Act. 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: Labrador Retriever versus DAWN FIELD ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: SNOW PERFUME ↗ 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/930470
- 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/931384
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/929608
- 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