# Uruaek and Urusa: confusion and dilution in Korean trade mark law Korea’s Patent Court considered the reputation of Urusa, the dominant element of Uruaek and the commercial links between medicines and health drinks in case 2026Heo10010. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1795 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Uruaek and Urusa: confusion and dilution in Korean trade mark law Korea’s Patent Court considered the reputation of Urusa, the dominant element of Uruaek and the commercial links between medicines and health drinks in case 2026Heo10010. Trademarks 2026.10.04 published IPLEX 7 min read A beverage registration challenged by a pharmaceutical brand On 18 June 2026, Korea’s Patent Court set aside the tribunal decision rejecting an invalidation challenge to Uruaek in case 2026Heo10010. Registration No. 1732944 covered Class 32 beverages, including health, vitamin and energy drinks. It was filed on 19 February 2020 and registered on 28 May 2021. The invalidation proceedings began on 7 December 2023; the tribunal rejected the challenge on 25 November 2025 in case 2023Dang3870. The claimant relied on earlier registered marks and its prior use of Urusa for a liver-function medicine. These are distinct forms of evidence: a registration establishes a registered right, whereas market recognition must be supported by evidence of use. The court’s central analysis concerned the reputation of the prior-used Urusa mark at the filing date of Uruaek. Two forms of harm to a famous mark Article 34(1)(11) of the Korean Trade Mark Act addresses both confusion with another undertaking’s goods or business and harm to a famous mark’s distinctiveness or reputation. Consumers may assume a common source or an economic connection. Separately, dilution may arise even where consumers know that the goods come from different businesses. Urusa’s long market presence mattered: the product launched in 1961, soft capsules followed in 1974, and advertising dated from around 1978. Sustained celebrity advertising, sales and recognition supported fame by February 2020. The court did not treat a modest share of the entire pharmaceutical market as decisive; recognition in the relevant field and accumulated advertising had to be assessed together. Why a different ending did not resolve the problem The court treated the Korean element Uru as dominant in Uruaek because aek describes a liquid and has little distinguishing force for the designated goods. Advertising had also emphasised Uru within Urusa. This was a contextual assessment, not a rule that matching first syllables always makes marks similar. The products shared health-related purposes, consumers and possible pharmacy sales channels. A beverage could be perceived as a liquid extension of a familiar pharmaceutical brand. The suggested chemical or Latin derivation of Uru did not determine ordinary consumers’ perception. Related Class 5 applications refused in 2021 supported the court’s assessment of an intended association, but those applications were not the Class 32 registration being challenged. The decision and its practical significance The court found both a risk of confusion and harm to the source-identifying strength of Urusa, and held that the registration should be invalidated under Article 34(1)(11). It therefore cancelled the contrary tribunal decision without needing to determine the other grounds. This report concerns that judgment; it does not independently certify the current register status. Clearance requires more than comparing spelling or class numbers. Consider dominant elements, likely brand extensions, trading conditions and the associations a name evokes. Brand owners should preserve dated advertising, sales and use records capable of showing reputation at the relevant filing date. The shared element alone does not establish the outcome in every later dispute. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the facts and the court’s reasoning. 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 ↗ ON THIS PAGE A beverage registration challenged by a pharmaceutical brand Two forms of harm to a famous mark Why a different ending did not resolve the problem The decision and its practical significance TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Joint design development: the risk of filing alone in Korea ↗ Older DEEPX DX-M1 and edge AI: connecting training with deployment feedback ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.15 Non-use cancellation: a place name added to a restaurant trade mark Korean Patent Court case 2024Heo13916 addresses use of “Gobaksa Naengmyeon” with the prefix “Pyeongtaek” and the scope of the cancellation claim. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.10.15 Coupang trademark complaint: the analysis behind resumed sales A desktop ornament returned to sale two days after IPLEX was engaged. The response connected the product name, actual use and listing evidence under Korean trademark law. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.10.14 Bankruptcy does not automatically excuse trade mark non-use Korean Supreme Court case 2024Hu11460 examines justified non-use from the bankruptcy trustee’s position. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1795 - 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/blog/brunch-case-1795#case-1795-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1795#case-1795-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1795#case-1795-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1795#case-1795-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1796 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/deepx-heterogeneous-processors-edge-ai - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1832 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1832 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-trademark-sales-resumption-1834 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/coupang-trademark-sales-resumption-1834 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1829 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1829