# Trademark Similarity Case: BOSS AUDIO SYSTEMS

The applied-for mark has upper and lower elements. “AUDIO SYSTEMS,” in the lower portion, is a term commonly used for the designated goods, which affects the assessment of that element's distinctiveness.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/942261

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: BOSS AUDIO SYSTEMS The applied-for mark has upper and lower elements. “AUDIO SYSTEMS,” in the lower portion, is a term commonly used for the designated goods, which affects the assessment of that element's distinctiveness. Trademarks 2023.11.01 published IPLEX 1 min read 2000 Hu 1658 Judgment [Trademark refusal] Cited mark Applied for trademark [Judgment] AUDIO SYSTEMS is descriptive of the applied-for goods, leaving BOSS as the dominant element. The cited mark's components can also be perceived separately. [Decisions] When the cited mark is identified by BOSS, it shares the application's pronunciation and concept. The marks were therefore considered similar. 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 Kynix Technology Wins an Award at the 2023 Korea Invention Patent Exhibition ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: dodo cosmetics ↗ 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/942261
- 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/942445
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/941720
- 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