Trademark Similarity Case: PRO-PAD
Similarity depends on appearance, sound and meaning in the context of the designated goods, and whether consumers or traders may confuse their commercial origin.
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.
391 articles and updates
AllPatentsAI & SoftwareOverseas TrademarksDesignsTrademarksIPLEX NewsOverseas DesignsOverseas PatentsCopyrightTechnology Listing
391 articles
Trademark Similarity: F1X versus F1 and Other Marks
The 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 articleTrademark Similarity: AUTOMAGICALLY versus MAGIC AUTO
The 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 articleTrademark Similarity: UNSTRESS versus STRESS-OUT and Another Mark
When 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 articleFigurative Trademark Similarity: Case-Law Summary
Former 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 articleFigurative Marks: Judicial Similarity Analysis
The court considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively and in the overall impression of each mark. Visual features may be particularly significant where they dominate that impression.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: Sooryehan Biyun versus Biyunjin
A composite mark need not always be understood or pronounced in full. Where its elements are not naturally inseparable, comparison may focus on a distinctive part.
Read articleTrademark Similarity Case: 700
Service-mark similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning, focusing on how consumers and traders perceive the source of the services.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: Key Judicial Findings
The wording “DOHC” is unrelated to the bag and wallet retail services at issue and dominates the mark, giving it strong distinctiveness. The small bird graphic makes a limited contribution to the overall impression.
Read articleIP Daily Column: The Nike Shoe NFT Case
Yongduck Kim draws on blockchain knowledge and IP work involving Kakao and TMAX affiliates to analyze the US trademark dispute concerning Nike shoe NFTs.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: A Pictorial-Mark Case
① Both marks consist of stylized anchor designs and do not readily evoke a name or concept other than an anchor. ② The court considered the written and visual evidence in Exhibits 10 through 93, including their subparts, together with the overall arguments.
Read articleTrademark Similarity: GRAZIA versus GRACIA
Where the components of a mark are not naturally inseparable, an independently distinctive element may determine how consumers pronounce or understand it.
Read article