# Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Review

Trademark similarity is assessed through appearance, sound and meaning, with attention to consumers' overall impression and the likelihood of confusion about commercial origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/933192

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Review Trademark similarity is assessed through appearance, sound and meaning, with attention to consumers' overall impression and the likelihood of confusion about commercial origin. Trademarks 2023.10.19 published IPLEX 4 min read 2006 Heo 2592 Trademark refusal [Legal] Similarity is assessed through the marks' overall appearance, pronunciation and concept and the likelihood of source confusion. Naturally separable components of a composite mark may be considered independently. Category Earlier registered mark Applied for trademark Mark Designated Goods Class 34: cigarettes, cigars, shredded tobacco, leaf tobacco, tobacco cases, ashtrays, cigarette boxes, cigarette filters, tobacco pipes and tobacco pouches, with the specified items made of non-precious metal Class 34: lighters; matches; pipes; pocket cigarette-rolling machines; raw or manufactured tobacco, namely cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos, hand-rolling tobacco, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco and snuff; and smokers’ requisites, namely cigarette paper and tubes, cigarette filters, tobacco boxes, cigarette cases and ashtrays, none made of precious metal or its alloys or plated with it. [Judgment] 1. Appearance The applied-for and earlier marks differ in their overall colors, lettering and graphic arrangements. 2. Pronunciation and concept The application resembles the front of a cigarette packet. At the top is: with further wording below: The smaller lower wording describes the tobacco's smoothness and has little distinctiveness. The upper portion: therefore functions as the main source identifier. Within that upper portion, the word element: the lion graphic: and the additional wording: can be perceived separately. When the upper wording: is pronounced, SIGNATURE can function independently. The applicant acknowledged that the company-name element identifies its cigarette business, while SIGNATURE does not describe the designated goods. If the application is identified by SIGNATURE, the earlier mark: has the same pronunciation and concept. [Decisions] The shared SIGNATURE pronunciation and concept made the marks similar overall. 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: Judicial Findings in Context ↗ Older Technology-Based Special Listing Training Completed ↗ 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/933192
- 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/934875
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/932681
- 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