# Trademark Similarity: Case Summary

Both marks consist of a single dog figure. Each can be referred to as a dog and evokes that concept, supporting similarity in sound and meaning.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/968236

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Case Summary Both marks consist of a single dog figure. Each can be referred to as a dog and evokes that concept, supporting similarity in sound and meaning. Trademarks 2023.12.13 published IPLEX 2 min read 2002 Dang (post-remand) 1103(granted) Cited mark Registered mark at issue [Similarity of the marks] 1. Pronunciation and concept Both marks consist of a single dog figure. Each can be referred to as a dog and evokes that concept, supporting similarity in sound and meaning. 2. Appearance Both graphics show the side profile of a slender dog standing on four legs and facing forward. Differences in color and tail position did not overcome their similar overall impression. Ordinary consumers of the goods were not assumed to distinguish the particular dog breeds. The similar marks and overlapping goods could therefore cause confusion as to source. [Decisions] The marks were similar in appearance, pronunciation and concept. 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: Cyber Frontier versus New Frontier ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: LOTTE DE ART versus ART ↗ 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/968236
- 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/968594
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/965710
- 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