Analysis of IP practice, AI technology and international protection, alongside news from IPLEX. Explore the articles in English.
443 articles and updates
443 articles
An SME representative recently sought advice after receiving a patent infringement warning by certified mail. This article explains practical considerations in preparing a response.
Read articleThe applied-for mark and the earlier registered mark differ visually in their wording, including “THE MAGIC” and “Steam,” and in their graphic elements.
Read articleComparison of the registered and earlier service marks for financial services, including development finance, international finance, investment, guarantees, lending and accounting.
Read articleThe court compares appearance, sound and meaning and considers the marks' overall impression on consumers and traders. For use on the same goods, the central issue is the likelihood of confusion about source.
Read articleSimilarity is assessed through the marks' appearance, sound and meaning, considering consumers' overall impression and potential confusion about source. The analysis also considers how the individual word and graphic elements contribute to that impression.
Read articleA composite service mark may be referred to or understood through an independently distinctive element where separating its components would not be unnatural in trade. More than one pronunciation or meaning may therefore arise.
Read articleIPLEX patent attorney Yongduck Kim has been certified as an intellectual property instructor.
Read articleThe applied-for mark combines wording with simple green and blue geometric elements. The analysis considers whether those common shapes contribute distinctiveness to the mark.
Read articleA mark combining words or graphics need not always be pronounced as a whole. Where the elements are not naturally inseparable, a distinctive part may determine how consumers refer to the mark.
Read articleCompare 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 article