The application and the procedural history
On 22 January 2026, the Korean Patent Court dismissed the challenge to the refusal of the Korean-word mark pronounced TikTok for Class 30 goods, including chocolate, cookies, cakes, bread and coffee. The application was filed on 16 July 2020. The earlier TikTok sign was used for a social-networking app, user-generated video services, advertising and online sales intermediation.
An initial refusal under Article 34(1)(13) of the Korean Trade Mark Act was overturned by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board in 2023. After publication and opposition, a further refusal was issued under Article 34(1)(11). The Board upheld it on 25 March 2025 in case 2024Won2030, and the Court maintained that outcome in case 2025Heo10379. The change in grounds and the two procedural stages should not be conflated.
Reputation and dilution were the central issues
Similarity of the signs was not disputed; both were pronounced TikTok. The decisive questions were whether the earlier sign was famous among Korean consumers at the filing date and whether the application threatened its distinctive character.
The latter part of Article 34(1)(11) can protect the unique association between a famous mark and its source even without likely confusion about origin. Goods need not have the same commercial classification, nor is an economic connection between them invariably required for the dilution analysis.
Evidence at the July 2020 filing date
The Court considered approximately three million Korean users in July 2020, easy access to the app and its editing functions, and its leading position in the relevant Korean Google Play category in 2018. Music challenges, new releases by singers, participation by ordinary users and circulation on other social networks extended awareness beyond active users. The entry of a term for TikTok creators into a dictionary was another relevant circumstance.
International recognition supported the analysis in the context of a service connecting Korean and foreign artists and fans, but foreign fame was not automatically equated with Korean fame. Earlier uses and registrations by other businesses did not defeat the finding: many predated TikTok’s widespread domestic recognition, and evidence of those other products’ reputation was insufficient.
Why an app and confectionery could be associated
The identical pronunciation and strong distinctiveness made the platform readily come to mind. Confectionery reviews and product-experience or sales videos appeared on the platform, while the applicant promoted its own products through online video. The Court considered the overlap in audiences and circumstances suggesting an intended association.
The applicant’s explanation that the name evoked a popping sensation did not make this particular expression necessary. Following the launch of TikTok jelly in December 2020, blog reactions also showed consumers associating it with the app. Those sales and reactions were evidence of association; they should not be confused with the precise list of goods in the application.
Later sales did not resolve the filing-date problem
The product reportedly sold 1.25 million units within three months and reached convenience stores, supermarkets and online channels, with substantial video exposure. The Court acknowledged those facts but noted that they followed the filing date.
Later recognition of the applicant’s product, or the assertion that confectionery differs from an app, did not remove the risk that the earlier mark’s positive image, advertising value and consumer appeal would be dispersed or diluted. The refusal under Article 34(1)(11) therefore stood.
Practical implications for brand clearance
A search limited to registered marks in the same industry may miss a material risk. Review famous marks in other sectors, the audience and actual promotional channels, and evidence of what consumers associate with the proposed name. Historical registrations should be assessed against the market and reputation at their respective dates.
Record how the new name was developed and retain pre-filing evidence. An independent naming explanation can be relevant but does not replace evidence of consumer perception. Owners of famous marks should preserve user figures, media coverage, cultural circulation and actual reactions. The judgment does not prohibit every familiar word in every field; it rests on the combined facts of this Korean case.
Original figure labels and forms are preserved; the surrounding text explains their meaning.