# Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Summary

Similarity requires an objective assessment of appearance, sound and meaning, considering the marks as a whole and as encountered separately in trade. The question is whether consumers may confuse their commercial origin; similarity in one aspect must be assessed in the overall context.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/951873

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Summary Similarity requires an objective assessment of appearance, sound and meaning, considering the marks as a whole and as encountered separately in trade. The question is whether consumers may confuse their commercial origin; similarity in one aspect must be assessed in the overall context. Trademarks 2023.11.15 published IPLEX 3 min read 2003 Heo 2812 Trademark refusal [Legal] Trademark similarity is assessed as a whole, objectively and at separate times, considering appearance, pronunciation and concept and the likelihood of source confusion. Similarity in one aspect is not decisive where the overall impression clearly distinguishes the marks. Cited mark 1 Cited mark 2 Applied-for mark [Judgment] The application combines separable graphic and word elements. Both graphics use two opposing C shapes, but one places them touching horizontally with a central line, while the cited graphics interlock vertically. Because the designs are simple, these differences materially affect their overall appearance. The graphics do not produce a particular pronunciation or concept that would support similarity. [Decisions] The applied-for mark was neither identical nor similar to the cited marks. 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: Ellis versus PERRY ELLIS ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS ↗ 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/951873
- 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/952883
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/948417
- 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