Trademark Similarity Case: M Plus

2003 Heo 7480 Trademark refusal

The applied-for mark places a large “M”, two intersecting curves and “Plus” inside a rectangle, with very small “Mobile card” lettering. Earlier mark 2 places “M” within a bold plus-shaped device, followed by “PLUS”, with “MPLUSTECH” below. Their appearances differ.

The applied-for mark is perceived as “MPlus”: its individual components lack sufficient independent distinctiveness, and the small “Mobile card” text is inconspicuous. Earlier mark 2 can be referred to as either “MPLUS” or “MPLUSTECH”. When referred to as “MPLUS”, it has the same pronunciation and concept as the applied-for mark. The marks are therefore similar overall.

“Electronic assembly cards” were classified in former Class 9, Group 33 for electronic apparatus and parts. The applicant argued that the term meant credit-card-sized IC or smart cards with a microprocessor, operating system, security module and memory for transactions such as electronic money, and therefore differed from computer goods. The record did not support that interpretation. KIPO’s Goods Explanation I instead described plastic boards with printed wiring, assembled transistors or resistors, and plug connections to other circuits. The court understood the term as boards installed in electronic equipment, such as video, graphics and sound cards. Compared with the earlier mark 2’s modems, computers and CD-ROMs, these goods were computers or components directly involved in their operation, commonly made and sold through the same computer-product channels. Their form, use, producers, sellers and consumers overlapped, so the goods were similar.

The applied-for mark is similar to earlier mark 2 in both the mark itself and some of its designated goods.