# How Korean consumers pronounce an English-letter trade mark The BAF/VAP invalidity case shows why intended pronunciation, consumer evidence and the relevant assessment date must be distinguished. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1810 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS How Korean consumers pronounce an English-letter trade mark The BAF/VAP invalidity case shows why intended pronunciation, consumer evidence and the relevant assessment date must be distinguished. Trademarks 2026.10.09 published IPLEX 6 min read The earlier proprietor and the challenger were different companies The Korean Patent Court dismissed the challenge to an invalidity decision on 3 September 2026 in 2026Heo10012. The contested Hangul BAF mark, registration 1736168, covered processed nuts, dried fruit mixes and related Class 29 goods. Its registration decision was dated 1 June 2021. Earlier registration 1248023, VAP, belonged to Natural Life, whereas the invalidity petitioner was Murgerbon. Murgerbon sold competing snack products and had considered a product using the abbreviation BAF for body profile around November 2020. The court found a direct and present interest in removing the registration, assessed at the tribunal decision. Ownership of, or a licence under, VAP was not essential in these circumstances. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board had invalidated the mark on 26 November 2025. Comparison of the registered BAF and earlier VAP marks A coined word may have more than one plausible pronunciation The signs differed visually and could not readily be equated conceptually. Nevertheless, VAP was a coined expression rather than a word with a settled dictionary pronunciation. Consumers might spell out the letters or read it as a word, producing Korean sounds approximating baf, baef, bab or baeb. The first matched the contested mark; the second was also aurally close. The question was the risk of consumers attributing identical or similar goods to the same commercial source. The relevant Class 29 goods overlapped in nature, purpose, production and distribution channels and consumers; their identity or similarity was not disputed. The court did not compare every item in VAP’s registration indiscriminately. VAP product and sales-material labels, example 1 VAP product and sales-material labels, example 2 Seller-controlled material did not establish settled consumer usage Product descriptions and sponsored posts showed the seller’s use of a letter-by-letter pronunciation. They did not establish that this pronunciation had become widespread among Korean consumers by 1 June 2021. Many materials post-dated that date or lacked reliable dates; consumer posts were limited and their reach unproven. Sales, market share, advertising exposure and actual consumer usage were insufficiently documented. An old review did not prove that today’s displayed brand name appeared when the review was written. A 2019 advertisement itself played on a word-like reading of VAP, while a consumer’s 2024 pronunciation query came over three years too late and indicated uncertainty. Evidence of the proprietor’s fame also often concerned later use or use alongside HBAF, rather than the Hangul mark alone at the relevant date. Consent and portfolio management require precise matching The 2026 consent to coexistence concerned separate, later applications. The consent system effective from 1 May 2024 did not apply to this mark’s earlier registration decision. Later consent for another mark was also not proof of consumers’ earlier pronunciation. Clearance should examine plausible Korean readings, not only a preferred brand pronunciation. Preserve dated consumer usage and evidence of its reach, and distinguish historical page captures from current screens. Match each registration number, goods specification, registration-decision date and consent document. This judgment concerns one Hangul registration; it does not invalidate the entire HBAF brand or decide a general sales ban. 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 The earlier proprietor and the challenger were different companies A coined word may have more than one plausible pronunciation Seller-controlled material did not establish settled consumer usage Consent and portfolio management require precise matching TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Design scope proceedings: identify the product the respondent actually uses ↗ Older Chemical patent enablement: examples must support the invention actually claimed ↗ 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-1810 - 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-1810#case-1810-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1810#case-1810-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1810#case-1810-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1810#case-1810-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1811 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1809 - 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