Trademark Similarity Case: M Plus
The 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 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.
443 articles and updates
AllTrademarksPatentsAI & SoftwareOverseas TrademarksIPLEX NewsDesignsOverseas DesignsOverseas PatentsCopyrightTechnology Listing
443 articles
Trademark Similarity: A Figurative-Mark Case
The 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 articleTrademark Similarity: Examining a Judicial Decision
The 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 articleTrademark Similarity Case: Gyeongju Bread
The 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 articleTrademark 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 articleTrademark 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 article