Trademark Similarity: Key Points from a Court Decision
Microprocessors: Class 9 (originally Class 39; reclassified on 7 June 2002).
Read articleNEWS & INSIGHTS
Ideas, developments
and perspectives on IP.
Analysis of IP practice, AI technology and international protection, alongside news from IPLEX. Explore the articles in English.
336 articles and updates
AllPatentsAI & SoftwareOverseas TrademarksDesignsTrademarksIPLEX NewsOverseas DesignsOverseas PatentsCopyrightTechnology Listing
106 articles
Trademark Similarity: Onggijangi Hangari Kalguksu versus Hangari
The registered service mark consists of the Korean wording “Onggijangi Hangari Kalguksu,” while the earlier mark consists of “Hangari.” Viewed as complete expressions, they differ in appearance, sound and meaning. The analysis then considers the role of individual elements within that overall assessment.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: BOSS AUDIO SYSTEMS
The applied-for mark has upper and lower elements. “AUDIO SYSTEMS,” in the lower portion, is a term commonly used for the designated goods, which affects the assessment of that element's distinctiveness.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: dodo cosmetics
Trademark and service-mark similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning. The question is whether the marks may cause confusion about commercial origin; similarity in one aspect is considered within that overall assessment.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: Noblesse Furniture
The registered mark combines Korean wording transliterating “NOBLESSE,” meaning nobility, with the Korean word for furniture. Red dots separate the characters and a graphic sits above them. Its appearance differs from the earlier registered marks.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: Sinjeonggol Traditional Bone Soup
Service-mark similarity depends on an objective comparison of appearance, sound and meaning, considering each mark as a whole and as encountered separately. The assessment asks whether ordinary consumers may confuse the source of the designated services.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: BRAVA
Unless its elements form a naturally inseparable whole, a composite mark may be referred to or understood by a distinctive part. A single mark may therefore have more than one recognizable pronunciation or meaning.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: Judicial Findings in Context
Compare the marks' appearance, sound and meaning in light of how ordinary consumers and traders perceive them. The central question is whether their use may cause confusion about the source of the goods.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: A Case-Law Review
Trademark similarity is assessed through appearance, sound and meaning, with attention to consumers' overall impression and the likelihood of confusion about commercial origin.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: SANY
For marks used on the same goods, compare appearance, sound and meaning and assess whether the overall impression may lead consumers or traders to confuse the source.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: Labrador Retriever versus DAWN FIELD
The assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, focusing on the risk of confusion about their commercial origin.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: TIMEWISE, Wise Brown and WISER
Similarity requires an objective assessment of the marks as a whole and as encountered separately. Appearance, sound and meaning inform whether the overall impressions distinguish their commercial origins.
Read article