# IP Insights, Commentary & News — Page 26 Browse IPLEX interviews, commentary and updates on AI patents, international trademarks, disputes and filing practice. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/26 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Ideas, developments and perspectives on IP. Analysis of IP practice, AI technology and international protection, alongside news from IPLEX. Explore the articles in English. 336 articles and updates ⌕ All Patents AI & Software Overseas Trademarks Designs Trademarks IPLEX News Overseas Designs Overseas Patents Copyright Technology Listing 336 articles Trademarks 2023.03.09 Trademark Similarity: uniPOS versus POS The applied-for trademark and service mark “uniPOS” combine “uni” and “POS” as a single expression. “POS,” short for “Point of Sale,” lacks distinctiveness in the relevant context. The combined mark was therefore found dissimilar to the earlier registered service mark “POS.” ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.03.06 Trademark Similarity Case: M Plus The applied-for mark combines a large “M” at the upper left, two intersecting curves in the center and “Plus” at the lower right. The words “Mobile card” appear above in very small lettering. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.03.03 Trademark Similarity: A Figurative-Mark Case The analysis considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively, as a whole and through separate observation. A shared dominant visual impression can be important, particularly when the marks are used on the same goods. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.28 Trademark Similarity: Examining a Judicial Decision The plaintiff argued that the registered mark resembled the dominant elements of earlier registrations 1 through 9. Those elements combine two opposing “e” shapes, open at the outer sides and without a central horizontal line. The registered mark instead depicts the eighth Greek letter, theta. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.27 Trademark Similarity Case: Gyeongju Bread The wording in both signs consists of the geographic name “Gyeongju” and the generic term “bread,” which lack distinctiveness on their own. The comparison therefore turns to the graphics, including the registered mark's stylized face-pattern roof tile and cloud-like features. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.24 Trademark Similarity Case: PRO-PAD Similarity depends on appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, and whether consumers or traders may confuse their commercial origin. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.22 Trademark Similarity: F1X versus F1 and Other Marks The comparison considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively, as a whole and through separate observation. The issue is whether use for the designated goods may cause consumers or traders to confuse their source. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.21 Trademark Similarity: AUTOMAGICALLY versus MAGIC AUTO The applied-for mark consists of “AUTOMAGICALLY,” describing something that happens automatically with an apparently magical element and a better-than-expected result. The word combines the ideas expressed by “automatic” and “magical.” ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.20 Trademark Similarity: UNSTRESS versus STRESS-OUT and Another Mark When marks are used on the same goods, compare their appearance, sound and meaning objectively, both overall and as encountered separately, to assess the likelihood of source confusion. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.17 Figurative Trademark Similarity: Case-Law Summary Former Article 7(1) of the Trademark Act listed marks ineligible for registration notwithstanding Article 6. The cited text reflects amendments dated December 10, 1993; August 22, 1997; February 3, 2001; and December 31, 2004. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.16 Figurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis The court considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively and in the overall impression of each mark. Visual features may be particularly significant where they dominate that impression. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2023.02.15 Trademark Similarity: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin A composite mark need not always be understood or pronounced in full. Where its elements are not naturally inseparable, comparison may focus on a distinctive part. ↗ Read article 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/ai - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/global-trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/design - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/firm - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/global-design - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/global-patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/copyright - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/listing - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/809693 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/809693 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/808205 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/808205 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/807166 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/807166 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/805150 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/805150 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/804227 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/804227 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/801987 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/801987 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800780 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800780 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800214 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/800214 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/799578 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/799578 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/798283 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/798283 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/797197 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/797197 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796667 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/796667 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/6 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/7 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/8 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/9 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/10 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/11 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/12 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/13 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/14 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/15 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/16 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/17 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/18 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/19 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/20 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/21 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/22 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/23 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/24 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/25 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/26 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/27 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/page/28