2010 Heo 1695 Trademark registration invalidation
| Earlier registered marks 1–5 | Earlier registered marks 6 and 7 | Earlier registered marks 8 and 9 | Registered trademark | |
| Mark |  |  |  |  |
[Similarity of the marks]
The plaintiff argued that the registered mark and the dominant elements of earlier marks 1–9 
were similar. The court disagreed.
The earlier device consists of two opposing “e” shapes, open on the outer sides and without a continuous horizontal line through the middle. The registered mark consists of two adjoining theta-like shapes, closed on both sides and crossed by a horizontal line, resembling sleepy eyes. These differences create clearly different overall impressions. The registered mark has no particular pronunciation or concept that can be compared with those of the earlier marks.
were similar. The court disagreed.The earlier device consists of two opposing “e” shapes, open on the outer sides and without a continuous horizontal line through the middle. The registered mark consists of two adjoining theta-like shapes, closed on both sides and crossed by a horizontal line, resembling sleepy eyes. These differences create clearly different overall impressions. The registered mark has no particular pronunciation or concept that can be compared with those of the earlier marks.[Decisions]
The marks are visually dissimilar and therefore not similar, regardless of whether their designated goods are similar.
This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances.