# Trademark Similarity Case: SANY

For marks used on the same goods, compare appearance, sound and meaning and assess whether the overall impression may lead consumers or traders to confuse the source.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/931869

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: SANY For marks used on the same goods, compare appearance, sound and meaning and assess whether the overall impression may lead consumers or traders to confuse the source. Trademarks 2023.10.17 published IPLEX 3 min read 2008 Heo 10481 Trademark refusal [Legal] Trademark similarity is assessed through overall appearance, pronunciation and concept and the likelihood of source confusion. Similarity in one element is not decisive where the overall impression distinguishes the marks. Earlier registered Trademark 1 The Earlier registered Trademark 2 The Earlier registered Trademark 3 Applied-for mark [Similarity of the marks] 1. Appearance and concept SANY is a word mark in capital letters. Earlier marks 1 and 2 use Shany and Korean company wording, while mark 3 combines Sani with a graphic. Their appearances differ. As coined terms, the words do not permit a meaningful conceptual comparison. 2. Pronunciation SANY would be pronounced “Sani” in Korean. Corporate wording in earlier marks 1 and 2 is non-distinctive, leaving Shany as the dominant element. Sani in mark 3 is pronounced identically to SANY, and Shany has a very similar sound. [Decisions] Despite visual differences, the identical or closely similar pronunciations created a likelihood of confusion on identical or similar goods. 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 2023 Design Start-Up Package: Individual Mentoring Completed ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: Labrador Retriever versus DAWN FIELD ↗ 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/931869
- 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/932227
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/931384
- 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