# Service Mark Similarity: Case Review

The applied-for service mark joins the outer end of an “@” symbol to the beginning of a handwritten “i”, and combines that graphic with “NET”. Cited service mark 1 combines a graphic with “INET”, including a dot between “I” and “NET” and a stylized “N”…

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/956969

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Service Mark Similarity: Case Review The applied-for service mark joins the outer end of an “@” symbol to the beginning of a handwritten “i”, and combines that graphic with “NET”. Cited service mark 1 combines a graphic with “INET”, including a dot between “I” and “NET” and a stylized “N”… Trademarks 2023.11.23 published IPLEX 3 min read 2001 Heo 4326 (dismissed) Cited service mark 1 Cited service mark 2 Cited service mark 3 Applied-for service mark [Similarity of the marks] 1. Similarities of appearance The applied-for mark combines a stylized i with an @ symbol, joining the symbol's outer end to the beginning of the i: The service mark combines that graphic with “NET”; cited service mark 1 includes the following graphic: It also includes “INET”, with a dot between “I” and “NET” and a somewhat stylized “N”, as shown: Cited mark 2 places INET in contrasting lettering within a rectangular design, while cited mark 3 uses stylized Inet lettering with fine lines between the letters. Their overall appearances differ. 2. Pronunciation and concept. The applied-for mark's graphic element: is more naturally perceived as @ than as a Korean letter. The symbol is commonly associated with internet email addresses and is weak for the internet-related information services concerned. That element lacks distinctiveness for the designated services. The dominant portion of the applied-for service mark is therefore “iNET”, which may be pronounced in Korean as “ainet” or “aineteu”. The cited service marks are also pronounced and perceived in those ways. Their pronunciation and concept are thus identical or very similar. Viewed as a whole, objectively and at a distance, the marks are similar enough to create a likelihood of confusion over the source of the services. [Similarity of the designated services] The application and cited mark 1 shared data communication, wireless communication, facsimile communication and computer communication services. The business-information, advertising and statistical-information services also overlapped with related information services in the cited marks. Accommodation-information services were closely related to tourist accommodation, condominium and hotel services under the former service classification. [Decisions] Both the marks and the designated services were therefore 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 Trademark Similarity: Judicial Analysis ↗ Older Trademark Similarity Case: Woori Doori ↗ 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/956969
- 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/959119
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/956010
- 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