# Trademark Similarity: GINGANET versus ZINKA

TV receivers, audio (for home use), video receivers, recording equipment (not for film use), cassette players, computer monitors, etc.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/964927

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: GINGANET versus ZINKA TV receivers, audio (for home use), video receivers, recording equipment (not for film use), cassette players, computer monitors, etc. Trademarks 2023.12.07 published IPLEX 2 min read 2002 Heo 2051(dismissed) Category Cited mark Applied-for mark Mark ZINKA Jinga Designated Goods TV receivers, audio (for home use), video receivers, recording equipment (not for film use), cassette players, computer monitors, etc. Telephones, interphones, passive transmitters, vending machines, radio transmitters, radio receivers, television transmitters, television receivers, television satellite receivers, etc. [Similarity of the marks] GINGANET consists of eight Roman letters tilted slightly to the right, with the fifth letter A extending slightly above the others. It is a coined word without an independent established meaning. NET abbreviates “network” and describes a characteristic or function of the designated communications, broadcasting and audiovisual equipment or parts, so it lacks distinctiveness for those goods. The dominant element is therefore GINGA, which the applicant acknowledged could be pronounced “Ginga” or “Jinga”. The cited mark’s Korean and Roman-letter elements can be viewed separately. When GINGA is pronounced “Jinga”, it coincides with the Korean element of the cited mark, making the marks identical or similar in pronunciation. [Designated goods] Both marks designate similar communications, broadcasting and audiovisual equipment. Use of the marks on those goods could cause consumers to believe that the manufacturer or seller is the same, creating confusion as to origin. 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: LOTTE DE ART versus ART ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: Reviewing Judicial Reasoning ↗ 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/964927
- 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/965710
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/964524
- 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