Trademark Similarity Case: JS Jangsu Gudeul

2010 Heo 9224 Trademark registration invalidation

A composite mark may be perceived through one of its distinctive components unless the components are inseparably combined. If a mark has more than one possible pronunciation or concept, similarity in one of them may support a finding that the marks are similar.

Goods classes facilitate registration administration; they do not determine the legal scope of similarity. Similarity of goods depends on whether use of identical or similar marks could suggest a common source, considering their nature, form, purpose, producers, sales channels and consumers.

“JS” is perceived as the English initials of “Jangsu” and has weak independent distinctiveness. “Jangsu” and “Gudeul” do not form an inseparable new concept. The registered mark may therefore be referred to by the distinctive “Jangsu” element alone.

The comparison mark's wording and device can also be considered separately. The phrase meaning “e-hot bed” describes the quality or function of the stone beds and is weakly distinctive. “Jangsu stone bed” is naturally understood as “Jangsu” plus the generic name “stone bed”, so “Jangsu” is also its dominant element.

Both marks may be referred to as “Jangsu”, giving them the same pronunciation and concept. The court found the marks similar.

The registered mark's listed goods include stands, lecterns, mirrors, stools, divans, chests, lockers, benches, screens, cabinets, shelves, sofas, tables, desks, chairs, racks, wardrobes, display cases and other household or office furniture. The comparison mark covers stone beds. These goods share furnishing, storage, seating, resting or decorative functions, and their producers, sellers and consumers overlap. The court held that use of similar marks on these goods could cause confusion as to source and found the goods similar.

Both the marks and their designated goods are similar.