A dispute confined to particular goods and services
In its judgment of 25 June 2026 in case 2025Heo10544, the Korean Patent Court considered whether METAVIEW conflicted with an earlier composite mark containing a hexagonal device and the words AUGMENTED REALITY and metaVu. The decision illustrates why a different logo or colour scheme does not settle the comparison, even where software is marketed on screens.
METAVIEW was filed on 4 June 2021 and registered on 1 February 2023 for goods and services in Classes 9, 41, 42 and 45. The earlier mark was filed on 31 December 2014 and registered on 27 September 2016. The invalidation request concerned only certain files, software and blank discs in Class 9 and software development and online-community services in Class 42: the items identified in Annex 1 as Class 9 items (a), (c), (e) and (g), and Class 42 item (b).
On 30 July 2025, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board upheld that request in case 2023Dang3522. The METAVIEW proprietor then sought cancellation of the Board’s decision. The dispute did not concern the registration as a whole, and the result must not be extended to all Class 41 or Class 45 services.
Identifying the earlier mark’s distinctive core
Although a composite mark is assessed as a whole, an element that independently indicates commercial origin may require particular attention. The court examined the actual prominence of each component, rather than assigning equal weight to every word and shape.
Intersecting blue and light-blue polygons formed a hexagon with a three-dimensional appearance. The bold, dimensional lettering of metaVu used similar colours. Both components occupied substantial space and made a strong impression on consumers. AUGMENTED REALITY was much less prominent.
The court therefore treated the device and metaVu as the mark’s essential components. This was an assessment of the particular composition and its source-identifying impression.
The court accepted that the marks looked different
The earlier mark’s device, colours and typography distinguished it visually from METAVIEW. Even a comparison limited to the lettering revealed different lengths—eight letters in METAVIEW and six in metaVu—and different presentation.
The court also considered a direct conceptual comparison difficult. Its conclusion did not depend on visual or conceptual identity: the remaining question was whether the way the marks would be spoken could still cause confusion about origin.
The relevant sound was the natural Korean pronunciation
For a foreign-language mark, the court considered how Korean traders and consumers would naturally pronounce it without particular difficulty, together with actual Korean-language usage. Different spelling or a possible foreign pronunciation was not decisive in itself.
METAVIEW could readily be understood as META plus VIEW and pronounced ‘me-ta-byu’. metaVu could be pronounced ‘me-ta-byu’ or ‘me-ta-bu’. Search results and translation displays supported the view that the former pronunciation was relatively more common.
The first reading was identical to that of METAVIEW. Under the second, only the vowel of the final syllable differed, while the remaining sounds matched; the court found the overall sound highly similar. It examined both plausible readings rather than forcing a single pronunciation.
Screen-based transactions did not remove the risk of confusion
The proprietor argued that the growing share of software advertising and transactions conducted through electronic displays made appearance particularly significant. It relied on the pronounced visual differences between the signs.
The court nevertheless noted that METAVIEW consisted of lettering without special stylisation. In the circumstances, the visual differences did not carry greater weight than, or neutralise, the identical or highly similar pronunciation. The use of screens did not justify disregarding sound.
The goods and services at issue were identical or similar to the earlier mark’s downloadable computer programs and computer-database updating services, among others. That comparison was not materially disputed. Use of the signs for those goods and services could therefore mislead consumers about commercial origin.
The court found a ground for invalidation under Article 34(1)(7) of the Korean Trademark Act as applicable to the case for the contested items and dismissed the proprietor’s action to cancel the Board’s decision. It upheld the partial invalidation; it did not reject the invalidation request.
Assess the name together with the logo
When selecting a name for software or a service, changes to graphics and colours should be considered alongside the elements consumers will remember, their likely pronunciation and the proximity of the goods and services.
For an English-language brand entering Korea, a clearance review should also compare natural Korean pronunciations. Different letter counts can still produce the same sound. This judgment does not establish that sound always prevails over appearance: the significance of each factor depends on the particular marks and trading circumstances.
The practical lesson is to distinguish a visually different logo from a sufficiently different indication of origin. The distinctive core, Korean pronunciation and designated goods or services must be assessed together.
The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material.