# Trademark Similarity Case: Sinjeonggol Traditional Bone Soup

Service-mark similarity depends on an objective comparison of appearance, sound and meaning, considering each mark as a whole and as encountered separately. The assessment asks whether ordinary consumers may confuse the source of the designated services.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/940245

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: Sinjeonggol Traditional Bone Soup Service-mark similarity depends on an objective comparison of appearance, sound and meaning, considering each mark as a whole and as encountered separately. The assessment asks whether ordinary consumers may confuse the source of the designated services. Trademarks 2023.10.27 published IPLEX 5 min read 2010 Heo 272 Trademark refusal [Judgment Standard] Service marks are assessed as a whole, objectively and at separate times, from the perspective of ordinary consumers. Similarity in one aspect does not establish overall similarity where other differences clearly avoid source confusion. An inseparable mark should not be artificially dissected. However, a naturally separable element that independently attracts attention and identifies source may be considered when assessing similarity. Earlier registered Service Mark Applied-for service mark [Comparison] 1. Appearance The markings on the service mark are clearly different from each other in color, with or without shapes, in the number of components, and in the type and type of Hangul, so that the appearance will be significantly different. 2. Pronunciation The applied-for mark contains the following elements: ", " ", " " and " These describe the nature or quality of the restaurant services and have weak distinctiveness. The next element may be distinctive, but its size and position make it less prominent: The graphic is strongly distinctive, but does not necessarily dominate the distinctive wording: " and " Those word elements can also determine how consumers identify the mark. The application may therefore be pronounced by the following wording: " and " as Sinjeonggol or SJ Food, or in combination with the pig graphic: " and " " or " " and " as “Pig Sinjeonggol” or “Pig SJ Food.” The earlier mark is pronounced Sinjeong. SJ Food and the combinations with Pig differ clearly. Sinjeonggol also differs from Sinjeong in length and meaning, making it unlikely that consumers would shorten both to Sinjeong. 3. Concept SJ Food does not convey a particular meaning, and SJ would not necessarily be understood as an abbreviation of Sinjeong. Sinjeong can instead evoke a new pavilion, New Year's Day or a place name. Sinjeonggol suggests a place name, while Sinjeong has several possible meanings. Adding the pig graphic produces a further concept unrelated to Sinjeong, reinforcing the distinction. [Decisions] The marks differed in appearance, pronunciation and concept and were dissimilar overall, without needing further analysis of service similarity. 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: Noblesse Furniture ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: BRAVA ↗ 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/940245
- 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/941252
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/939826
- 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