Analysis of IP practice, AI technology and international protection, alongside news from IPLEX. Explore the articles in English.
336 articles and updates
106 articles
Compare the marks' appearance, sound and meaning as ordinary consumers and traders perceive them, then assess whether their overall impressions create a likelihood of confusion about the goods' origin.
Read articleThe applied-for and earlier registered marks differ in appearance. The applied-for mark is a coined expression, so a meaningful conceptual comparison cannot be made.
Read articleThe applied-for trademark and service mark “uniPOS” combine “uni” and “POS” as a single expression. “POS,” short for “Point of Sale,” lacks distinctiveness in the relevant context. The combined mark was therefore found dissimilar to the earlier registered service mark “POS.”
Read articleThe applied-for mark combines a large “M” at the upper left, two intersecting curves in the center and “Plus” at the lower right. The words “Mobile card” appear above in very small lettering.
Read articleThe analysis considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively, as a whole and through separate observation. A shared dominant visual impression can be important, particularly when the marks are used on the same goods.
Read articleThe plaintiff argued that the registered mark resembled the dominant elements of earlier registrations 1 through 9. Those elements combine two opposing “e” shapes, open at the outer sides and without a central horizontal line. The registered mark instead depicts the eighth Greek letter, theta.
Read articleThe wording in both signs consists of the geographic name “Gyeongju” and the generic term “bread,” which lack distinctiveness on their own. The comparison therefore turns to the graphics, including the registered mark's stylized face-pattern roof tile and cloud-like features.
Read articleSimilarity depends on appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, and whether consumers or traders may confuse their commercial origin.
Read articleThe comparison considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively, as a whole and through separate observation. The issue is whether use for the designated goods may cause consumers or traders to confuse their source.
Read articleThe applied-for mark consists of “AUTOMAGICALLY,” describing something that happens automatically with an apparently magical element and a better-than-expected result. The word combines the ideas expressed by “automatic” and “magical.”
Read articleWhen marks are used on the same goods, compare their appearance, sound and meaning objectively, both overall and as encountered separately, to assess the likelihood of source confusion.
Read articleFormer Article 7(1) of the Trademark Act listed marks ineligible for registration notwithstanding Article 6. The cited text reflects amendments dated December 10, 1993; August 22, 1997; February 3, 2001; and December 31, 2004.
Read article