# Trademark Similarity: Labrador Retriever versus DAWN FIELD

The assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, focusing on the risk of confusion about their commercial origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/931384

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Labrador Retriever versus DAWN FIELD The assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, focusing on the risk of confusion about their commercial origin. Trademarks 2023.10.16 published IPLEX 2 min read 2006 Hu 3557 Judgment [Trademark refusal] [Legal] Marks are assessed as a whole for source confusion. A shared element does not establish similarity if it is unlikely to be perceived independently or the overall impression clearly distinguishes the marks. Cited mark Applied for trademark [Judgment] The applied-for mark: and the earlier mark both depict a dog standing in profile with its tail raised. However, many dog graphics were registered for similar goods. The clearly different wording, Labrador Retriever and DAWN FIELD, and its placement distinguished the marks as a whole. [Decisions] The marks were therefore 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: SANY ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: TIMEWISE, Wise Brown and WISER ↗ 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/931384
- 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/931869
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/930470
- 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