How does Korea decide whether two marks are similar?

Jonghwan Choi, Managing Partner · Published 12 November 2026

Last verified 9 October 2026

The similarity test at a glance

As of October 2026.

The Trademark Examination Guidelines are Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처, MOIP) Established Rule No. 5, and the Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods are MOIP Established Rule No. 6. [3][4]

The similarity assessment looks at the marks and the goods together

Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7 of the Trademark Act provides that a trademark that meets both of two conditions cannot be registered. The trademark is identical or similar to a registered trademark of another person based on an earlier application, and it is used on goods identical or similar to the designated goods of that registered trademark. [1] Even if the marks are similar, subparagraph 7 does not apply where the goods are not identical or similar. [1] A registered collective mark with geographical indication (collective mark for a geographical indication) is excluded from the registered trademarks of subparagraph 7. Subparagraph 8 deals separately with a registered collective mark with geographical indication. [1]

The words “identical or similar” appear in several articles of the Trademark Act.

• First-to-file: where 2 or more applications are filed on different days for identical or similar trademarks to be used on identical or similar goods, only the person who filed first can obtain registration (Art. 35(1)). For applications filed on the same day, one applicant is determined by agreement among the applicants, or by lot if no agreement is reached (paragraph (2) of the same Article). [1]
• Widely recognized trademark of another person: Art. 34(1), subparagraph 9 also states “identical or similar trademark” and “identical or similar goods” as requirements. A geographical indication is excluded from the trademarks of subparagraph 9. [1]
• Infringement: using a trademark identical to the registered trademark of another person on goods similar to the designated goods is deemed infringement of the trademark rights or the exclusive license. The same applies to using a similar trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods (Art. 108(1), subparagraph 1). [1]

Not every ground for rejection requires similarity of goods. Art. 34(1), subparagraph 11 covers a trademark that is likely to cause confusion with the goods or business of another person remarkably recognized by consumers. The same applies to a trademark that is likely to dilute their distinctiveness or reputation. The wording of subparagraph 11 does not contain the words “identical or similar goods”. [1] This article focuses on subparagraph 7.

The definitions in Art. 2 of the Trademark Act contain no subparagraph that defines “similar”. [1] The tests described in this article are those of Supreme Court decisions and of the Trademark Examination Guidelines. The Trademark Examination Guidelines are an established rule of the Ministry of Intellectual Property. [3]

The Trademark Examination Guidelines read “another person” in subparagraph 7 as an entity with a different legal personality. An affiliated company that is a different right holder is regarded as another person even if it belongs to the same corporate group (Part 5, Chapter 7, 1.1.2). [3] Where the cited trademark has 2 or more right holders, they are regarded as another person unless all the members are the same (the same section). [3]

The Trademark Examination Guidelines apply subparagraph 7 only where the trademark is identical or similar to an earlier registered trademark of another person based on an earlier application. They do not apply it where the trademark is identical or similar to an earlier registered trademark based on a later application (Part 5, Chapter 7, 1.1.1). [3]

Appearance, pronunciation, and concept are compared, and confusion as to source decides the conclusion

The Trademark Examination Guidelines explain similarity of trademarks as follows. It is the case where two trademarks are similar in at least one of appearance, pronunciation, and concept. As a result, traders or general consumers must be likely to be confused as to the source of the goods if the trademarks are used on identical or similar goods (Part 5, Chapter 7, Supplementary Standard 2, 2.1). [3]

The Supreme Court held that whether trademarks are similar is determined by observing appearance, pronunciation, and concept in an overall, objective, and separate manner. The test is whether confusion as to the source of the goods is likely (Supreme Court Decision 2020Hu10957 Decided December 30, 2020). [5]

Similarity in one of the three elements does not directly make the trademarks similar. The same decision stated that, even if one element is similar, the trademarks cannot be called similar if general consumers, looking at them as a whole, are not likely to be confused as to the source. [5] In that case, the Supreme Court found that the pronunciations of two word marks were similar. However, it held that the marks could hardly be regarded as similar, because the appearances were remarkably different and the concepts could not be compared. [5] The provision applied in this decision is Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7 of the Trademark Act. On 1 May 2024, after the decision, a proviso on consent was added to subparagraph 7. That amendment did not change the wording of the main clause of subparagraph 7. [1][5]

The Trademark Examination Guidelines state the following. If one element is similar and confusion as to the source arises, the trademarks are in principle assessed as similar. If confusion as to the source can clearly be avoided when the trademarks are taken as a whole, they are assessed as not similar by way of exception (Supplementary Standard 2, 2.2.3). [3] Conversely, even if each element has parts that differ, the trademarks are regarded as similar if they are easily confused as a whole (2.2.1). [3]

In a decision of 5 June 2026, the Supreme Court held as follows. Whether trademarks are similar is assessed, from the viewpoint of general consumers, by whether there is a risk of confusion as to the source of the goods. The decision follows this test with the words “that is, whether there is a danger of harming the distinctiveness of the registered trademark” (Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu10118 Decided June 5, 2026). [8] This decision is a case of confirmation of the scope of rights. The reference provisions for this holding are Art. 2(1), subparagraph 1, Art. 89, and Art. 108(1), subparagraph 1 of the Trademark Act. [8]

Pronunciation is compared with a focus on the beginning of the word and on English-style pronunciation

The Trademark Examination Guidelines describe how to look at each of the three elements (Part 5, Chapter 7, Supplementary Standard 2, 2.2.2). [3] All examples in the table below are examples given in the Trademark Examination Guidelines. [3]

On pronunciation, the Trademark Examination Guidelines state the following (2.2.2(ⅰ)). [3]

• In a word of several syllables, the beginning of the word is generally pronounced and perceived strongly, so the comparison focuses on the pronunciation of the beginning of the word.
• A trademark written in English in principle follows English-style pronunciation, unless there are special circumstances for pronouncing it differently. Where a different pronunciation is in common use for certain goods, such as German-style pronunciation for pharmaceuticals or French-style pronunciation for cosmetics, that pronunciation is followed.
• For the pronunciation of a trademark in foreign characters, the pronunciation customary among Korean nationals and the representative pronunciation among the foreign nationals concerned are considered together.
• For a coined mark, assessment by concept is limited, so similarity of pronunciation can be the most important element of the assessment.
• For a trademark consisting only of a figure that does not evoke any particular pronunciation, pronunciation is not an object of comparison. Similarity is assessed mainly by appearance.
• For a combined mark whose parts are combined inseparably as one series, the assessment is in principle based on the pronunciation of the whole. If there is a separate main part that attracts the attention of consumers, the comparison focuses on the pronunciation of that part.
• Where 2 or more distinctive pronunciations come from one trademark, each pronunciation is compared.

On concept, the Trademark Examination Guidelines state that for a coined word with no meaning, concept is not an object of comparison. Where a modifier such as an adjective is combined with a word that has a meaning, the concept is in principle regarded as similar to that of the word without the modifier (2.2.2(ⅲ)). [3]

The assessment of appearance applies mainly between trademarks consisting of signs, figures, three-dimensional shapes, or combinations of these with colors. Between word marks too, similarity of appearance is considered in light of the composition and form of the characters (2.2.2(ⅱ)). [3]

For sounds, smells and the like, similarity is compared between trademarks of the same type on the basis of their visual representation (2.2.3). [3]

The marks are not placed side by side but are viewed apart, from memory

The method of observation in the Trademark Examination Guidelines is in principle overall, objective, and separate observation (Supplementary Standard 2, 2.2.3). [3]

• Overall observation: a part of the components must not be taken out alone and compared with the other trademark. The trademark is observed as a whole.
• Objective observation: the assessment is based on the composition of the trademark itself. Use in a changed typeface, use in a special manner, and whether there is an intention of unfair use are not considered. However, where the form of use is clear in relation to the goods, the form of use is taken into account.
• Separate observation: the assessment is based on the uncertain memory of consumers who encounter the trademarks at different times and places. This is the counterpart of comparative observation, in which the two trademarks are placed side by side.

Even if differences are visible when the trademarks are placed side by side, the trademarks are regarded as similar if confusion as to the source arises when they are observed at different times and places (2.2.3(ⅲ)). [3]

The consumers who serve as the standard are the consumers of the goods in general. The Trademark Examination Guidelines state that these are not actual, specific consumers but consumers in general as an average figure. They include final consumers, intermediate consumers, and wholesalers and retailers. The attention of a careless person who lacks attention, or of a person with expert powers of observation, is not the standard (2.2.4(ⅰ)). [3]

For confusion as to the source, it is sufficient to assess whether general consumers are likely to be confused in an abstract and general sense. Whether individual consumers are specifically and actually confused in real trade is not considered (2.2.4(ⅱ)). [3]

Trade circumstances can work in favor of a finding that the trademarks are not similar. The Trademark Examination Guidelines state that the nature of the goods, the types of traders, the commercial customs of the industry and similar matters are to be considered comprehensively and as a whole. If, as a result, it is found that there is clearly no risk of confusion as to the source, the trademarks can be assessed as not similar (2.2.4(ⅲ)). [3]

A survey of consumer perception can also be submitted as evidence, but its probative value is assessed by the judge. The Supreme Court stated that it examines whether the design and conduct of the survey followed objective procedures and standards (Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu11180 Decided October 25, 2024). [7] In the survey in that case, some questions presented the two trademarks at the same time and asked directly whether they were similar. The Supreme Court stated that this method is not appropriate from the standpoint of separate observation. [7] The same decision also stated that, for a survey conducted according to objective procedures and standards, caution is required before denying its reliability as such. [7]

For a combined mark, the essential parts are compared first if there is one

A combined mark consisting of a combination of 2 or more characters or figures is in principle assessed on the basis of the appearance, pronunciation, and concept of all its components as a whole. However, if there is an essential part, it is necessary to compare and assess similarity using the essential part (Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu1690 Decided February 9, 2017). [6] The essential part, in the words of the Supreme Court, is a part that by itself independently performs the function of indicating the source of the goods. It is a part that leaves an impression of the trademark on general consumers or makes them remember or recall it. [6]

The order set by the Supreme Court decisions is as follows.

1. If there is an essential part, the comparison can be made with the essential part alone, without the need to examine whether that part can be observed separately (Decision 2015Hu1690). [6]
2. To decide which part is the essential part, the first question is whether the part is well-known or famous or gives a strong impression to general consumers, and whether it takes up a large proportion of the trademark as a whole. In addition, the relative level of distinctiveness compared with the other components, the state and degree of the combination, the relationship with the designated goods, and trade circumstances are considered comprehensively (Decision 2015Hu1690). [6]
3. If there is nothing that can be called an essential part, the trademarks are compared as a whole under the principle of overall observation (Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu11180 Decided October 25, 2024). [7]
4. Where there are 2 or more essential parts, the two trademarks are regarded as similar if a comparison with the other trademark using only one of those essential parts shows similarity (Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu10118 Decided June 5, 2026). [8]

Decision 2023Hu10118 also stated the reason for comparing the essential part first. There are cases where two trademarks give an impression of similarity because of a component that has no distinctiveness or only weak distinctiveness. The Supreme Court stated that recognizing similarity even in such cases leads to the unjust result of granting an exclusive right over a mark without distinctiveness. [8] The registered trademark in that case consisted of a figurative part and a word part. Many trademarks containing the same word had been registered, or had their applications published, for goods identical or similar to the designated goods. Considering this circumstance, the Supreme Court found that the distinctiveness of the word part could hardly be recognized, or that it was not appropriate in the public interest to let a particular person monopolize it. It held that the essential part was the figurative part. [8]

Decision 2015Hu1690 is a service mark case to which the former Trademark Act (before it was wholly amended by Act No. 14033 of 29 February 2016) applied. What was disputed were grounds for invalidation of registration under Art. 7(1), subparagraphs 11 and 12 of the former Trademark Act. [6] The reference provisions of the decision also cite Art. 7(1), subparagraph 7 of the former Trademark Act and state “see the current Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7”. [6] The Supreme Court stated that this legal principle applies equally to service marks. [6] Art. 2(1), subparagraph 1 of the current Trademark Act defines a trademark with services included in goods. [1]

Decisions 2023Hu11180 and 2023Hu10118 cite Decision 2015Hu1690 as a reference case. [7][8] Decision 2023Hu11180 is a case on a decision to reject trademark registration under Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7 of the Trademark Act. [7] The wording of Decision 2015Hu1690 is that the comparison is made “using the essential part”, and the two later decisions state “first using the essential part”. [6][7][8]

The Trademark Examination Guidelines also allow observation of the essential part. They state that the following are in principle not essential parts (Supplementary Standard 2, 2.2.3(ⅳ)). [3]

• A mark without distinctiveness that falls under any subparagraph of Art. 33(1) of the Trademark Act. This excludes a mark that has acquired distinctiveness through use (secondary meaning).
• A mark to which trademark rights do not extend, as provided in the subparagraphs of Art. 90 of the Trademark Act.
• A three-dimensional shape or the like that is essential to secure the function of the goods or of the packaging of the goods.

However, the Trademark Examination Guidelines add that this does not mean that such a part is also excluded as a secondary consideration in overall observation. [3]

Among the standards on combined marks stated in the Trademark Examination Guidelines, those that often come into question are as follows (Supplementary Standard 2, 3.1). [3] All examples are examples in the Guidelines. The Trademark Examination Guidelines attach a proviso to all of the standards below. The standards below do not apply where it is clear that the combination of the components produces a remarkably different appearance, pronunciation, or concept (3.1). [3]

The Trademark Examination Guidelines also state the following. [3]

• A trade name mark is in principle assessed without characters such as 주식회사 or CO., LTD. (3.1.5).
• A trademark in which other characters are combined with a trademark that is well-known or famous in relation to the designated goods is in principle regarded as similar to that well-known or famous trademark (3.1.7).
• An inverted mark, in which the order of two words is reversed, can be regarded as not similar if a difference in concept arises, and as similar if no difference arises (3.4.2).
• In a trademark in the form of a domain name, commonly used parts such as www, com and kr are regarded as having no distinctiveness, and the assessment is made on the remaining part (3.3.2).
• A trademark recognized as having acquired distinctiveness through use can be an essential part in the assessment of identity or similarity (Part 5, Chapter 7, 3.4).

Similarity of goods starts from the similar group code

The classification of goods does not determine the scope of similarity of goods (Trademark Act, Art. 38(3)). [1]

In examination, whether designated goods are identical or similar is in principle assessed on the basis of the similar group code, regardless of the class (category of goods) (Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods, Art. 5). [4] A similar group is a group of goods whose nature and trade circumstances are identical or similar, and a similar group code is the symbol given to each similar group (Art. 2, subparagraph 2 of the same Guidelines). [4]

The cases in which the assessment differs from the similar group code are set out.

• The Trademark Examination Guidelines state that even goods within the same similar group code can be examined individually and specifically and assessed differently (Part 5, Chapter 7, 1.2). [3]
• Art. 7(4) of the Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods provides that a different assessment is possible notwithstanding Art. 5. The test is whether the goods compared are likely to be mistaken for goods manufactured or sold by the same business. [4]
• The same paragraph gives six factors to consider for goods. They are raw materials and quality or shape, use, production sector, sales (distribution channels), range of consumers, and whether the goods are manufactured or sold by the same business. [4]
• The factors to consider for services are stated separately and number five. They are the means, purpose and place of provision, the content of what is provided, the range of providers, the range of consumers, and whether the services are ordinarily provided by the same business operator (the same paragraph). [4]
• An examiner who intends to assess similarity differently although the similar group code is the same must seek the opinion of a consultative body. The consultative body consists of the part leader, the classification specialist of the examination division concerned, and the officer in charge of classification policy (Art. 7(5)). [4]
• For the similar group codes listed in Art. 7(1), including software (G390802) and wholesale and retail services and the like (S2001 to S2053), the assessment is made individually according to the characteristics of the goods even where the code is the same. [4]
• Between goods and services, the degree of similarity is in principle presumed to be low. However, they can be regarded as similar if, considering the subparagraphs of Art. 7(2) comprehensively, confusion as to the source is likely. [4]

On similarity of designated goods, the Supreme Court held as follows. Whether designated goods are similar is assessed by whether, if identical or similar trademarks are used, the goods are likely to be mistaken for goods manufactured or sold by the same business. The assessment follows the general understanding of trade, considering comprehensively the trade circumstances such as quality, shape, use, production sector, sales sector, and range of consumers (Supreme Court Decision 2020Hu10957 Decided December 30, 2020). [5]

Similar group codes can change. The point in time for applying the similarity assessment under the similar group code is the time of the decision on whether to grant trademark registration. If the similar group code at the time of filing differs from the similar group code at the time of the decision on whether to grant registration, the changed similar group code is followed (Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods, Art. 6). [4] The similar group codes and similarity assessment standards of the current Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods apply to examination from 6 January 2026 (Addenda (No. 6), Art. 1(2)). [4] The classification of classes and similar group codes applies to “written applications submitted on or after 6 January 2026”. “Written applications submitted on or before 6 January 2026” follow the former classification (paragraph (1) of the same Article). [4] The wording of the Addenda includes 6 January 2026 in both cases. The wording of the Addenda alone does not show which of the two covers a written application submitted on 6 January 2026 itself. [4]

Part 5, Chapter 7, Supplementary Standard 2, 4.1 of the Trademark Examination Guidelines cites “상품기준 §10” (Section 10 of the goods guidelines) as its basis. [3] The current Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods run up to Art. 8. The general principle of the similarity assessment is in Art. 5, and the cases of different assessment are in Art. 7. [4] This article follows the article numbers of the current Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods.

How to state designated goods and how the similar group code is structured are covered in “How are goods and services designated in a Korean trademark application?“.

Similarity is assessed as of the time of the decision on whether to grant trademark registration

Whether a trademark falls under Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7 is determined as of the time of the decision on whether to grant trademark registration (Trademark Act, Art. 34(2)). [1] The decision on whether to grant trademark registration means the decision to reject trademark registration and the decision to grant trademark registration (decision to register a trademark) (the subparagraphs of the same paragraph). [1] For Art. 34(1), subparagraphs 11, 13, 14, 20 and 21, the time when the trademark application was filed is the reference point (proviso to the same paragraph). [1] Even for these five subparagraphs, whether the applicant is “another person” under that subparagraph is determined as of the time of the decision on whether to grant trademark registration (proviso to the same paragraph). [1]

The present wording of Art. 34(2) was amended by Act No. 19809 and has been in force from 1 May 2024. In the immediately preceding version, in force from 15 March 2024, the main clause of Art. 34(2) stated “paragraph (1) and whether the applicant is another person under the relevant provision” together, and a proviso set the time of filing as the reference point for the five subparagraphs. The Addenda to Act No. 19809 contain no applicability provision for Art. 34(2). [1]

The conclusion can change if the situation of the earlier registered trademark changes after filing. The cases stated in the Trademark Examination Guidelines are as follows (Part 5, Chapter 7). [3]

• If an earlier-filed trademark is registered after a ground for rejection under Art. 35(1) was notified on the basis of that earlier-filed trademark, the examiner notifies a ground for rejection under subparagraph 7 and also makes the decision to reject trademark registration under subparagraph 7 (3.2).
• If a trial decision invalidating the earlier registered trademark of another person becomes final, that earlier registered trademark is regarded as never having existed. Grounds for invalidation that arise after registration are excluded (5.3).
• After a decision to reject trademark registration for only some of the designated goods (partial rejection) has become final, the ground for rejection is not overcome even if the cited earlier registered trademark is extinguished, the right holder and the applicant are made the same, or consent is obtained (5.2).
• Even if the applicant requests deferral of examination because of, for example, negotiations for assignment of the trademark rights, the examiner in principle does not defer examination. The examiner can defer if it is clear that the ground for rejection may be overcome soon, for example because an assignment contract is submitted (3.3).

Where the earlier registered trademark consists of internationally registered basic trademark rights under the Madrid Protocol, the examiner examines on the basis of the International Register and also checks the Korean trademark register (Trademark Examination Guidelines, Part 5, Chapter 7, 2.1). [3]

When the examiner notifies a ground for rejection under subparagraph 7, the applicant can submit a written opinion (Trademark Act, Art. 55(1)). [1] The period for submitting a written opinion is a period set by the examiner, up to 2 months (Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act (상표법 시행규칙), Art. 50(2)). [2] An applicant who did not submit a written opinion within this period can apply for continuing trademark-related procedures and submit the written opinion within 2 months from the expiration date of the period (Trademark Act, Art. 55(3)). [1] Art. 55(3) does not apply to an application for international trademark registration (국제상표등록출원) under the Madrid Protocol (Trademark Act, Art. 190(2)). [1] A ground for rejection of an application for international trademark registration is notified to the applicant through the International Bureau (paragraph (1) of the same Article). [1] The procedure after that is covered in “How do I register a trademark in Korea?“.

A similar trademark can also be registered with the consent of the right holder of the earlier registered trademark

The proviso to Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7 provides that trademark registration can be obtained where consent to the trademark registration has been obtained from that other person. The case where consent has been obtained for an identical trademark used on goods identical to the designated goods is excluded. [1] Art. 35(6), on first-to-file, has a provision to the same effect. [1]

This proviso was introduced by Act No. 19809 and entered into force on 1 May 2024. Act No. 19809 was promulgated on 31 October 2023. [1] Under Art. 2 of the Addenda, the proviso to subparagraph 7 and Art. 35(6) also apply to trademark applications, converted applications (modified applications), divisional applications and applications for registration of additional designated goods filed before entry into force. This is the case where the decision on whether to grant trademark registration is made on or after the enforcement date. [1]

The Trademark Examination Guidelines state that if a letter of consent is submitted for an applied-for trademark that the examiner assesses as not similar, that letter of consent is not applied in examination (Part 5, Chapter 7, Supplementary Standard 1, 5.4). [3]

The requirements for the letter of consent and the time for submitting it are covered in “Does Korea accept letters of consent for similar marks?“.

Similarity also matters after registration

Similarity appears again, in the same words, in procedures after registration. [1]

• Trial to invalidate trademark registration: where a trademark registration violates Art. 34, an interested party or an examiner can request a trial to invalidate the trademark registration (Trademark Act, Art. 117(1), subparagraph 1). A trial to invalidate on the ground of Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7 cannot be requested after 5 years have passed from the date of trademark registration (Art. 122(1)).
• Infringement: using a trademark identical to the registered trademark on goods similar to the designated goods, and using a similar trademark on goods identical or similar to the designated goods, are deemed infringement (Art. 108(1), subparagraph 1).
• Trial to confirm scope of rights (trial to confirm the scope of trademark rights): a trademark right holder (owner of trademark rights), an exclusive licensee, or an interested party can request a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the registered trademark (Art. 121).
• Trial to cancel trademark registration (trial to revoke trademark registration): it is a ground for cancellation where the trademark right holder willfully uses a trademark similar to the registered trademark on the designated goods. The same applies where the trademark right holder uses the registered trademark or a similar trademark on goods similar to the designated goods. The use must have caused consumers to misunderstand the quality of the goods or to confuse the goods with goods related to the business of another person (Art. 119(1), subparagraph 1). Any person can request this trial to cancel (paragraph (5) of the same Article). It cannot be requested after 3 years have passed from the date on which the facts constituting the ground for cancellation ceased to exist (Art. 122(2)).

The method of comparing the essential part first has been used both at the registration stage and in cases after registration. Decision 2015Hu1690 is an invalidation case, Decision 2023Hu11180 is a case on a decision to reject trademark registration, and Decision 2023Hu10118 is a case of confirmation of the scope of rights. [6][7][8] In a criminal case prosecuted for violation of the Trademark Act, the Supreme Court also compared the essential part first, citing Decisions 2015Hu1690 and 2023Hu11180 (Supreme Court Decision 2024Do8174 Decided November 20, 2025). [9] The reference provisions of that decision are Art. 108(1), subparagraph 1 and Art. 230 of the Trademark Act. [9]

There is a special rule for trademarks that differ only in color. A “trademark similar to the registered trademark” in Art. 108(1), subparagraph 1 and Art. 119(1), subparagraph 1 does not include a trademark that is recognized as the same trademark as the registered trademark if its color is made the same as that of the registered trademark (Trademark Act, Art. 225(2)). [1] This special rule does not apply to a registered trademark consisting only of a color or a combination of colors (paragraph (4) of the same Article). [1]

What applicants should do

• In general, we suggest deciding the Hangul pronunciation of the mark before filing. A mark in English is in principle pronounced in the English style, and for a word of several syllables the comparison focuses on the beginning of the word.
• We suggest searching for prior trademarks not by spelling but separately by pronunciation, appearance, and concept. Even if only one of the three elements is similar, the trademarks can in principle be assessed as similar.
• For a combined mark, it is advisable to estimate before filing which part is likely to be seen as the essential part. Parts such as a mark describing the features of goods or customarily used characters are in principle not essential parts.
• We suggest setting the scope of the prior trademark search by similar group code, not by class. The classification of goods does not determine the scope of similarity of goods.
• We suggest also checking earlier registered trademarks held by affiliated companies of the same corporate group. An affiliated company that is a different right holder is regarded as another person under Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7.
• On receiving a ground for rejection under subparagraph 7, we suggest reviewing the comparison of the marks and the comparison of the goods separately. Consent of the right holder of the earlier registered trademark can also be reviewed together.
• For an individual case, please check with your agent.

FAQ

Are trademarks not similar if the spelling is different?

No. Korea compares pronunciation and concept together with appearance. [3] The Trademark Examination Guidelines give EVOL and EPOL, and TOBY and TOPY, as examples of similar pronunciation (Part 5, Chapter 7, Supplementary Standard 2, 2.2.2). [3] Conversely, there is a Supreme Court decision holding that trademarks could hardly be regarded as similar, although the pronunciations were similar, because the appearances were remarkably different and the concepts could not be compared (Decision 2020Hu10957). [5]

Are goods not similar if the classes are different?

No. The classification of goods does not determine the scope of similarity of goods (Trademark Act, Art. 38(3)). [1] In examination, the assessment is in principle based on the similar group code, regardless of the class (Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods, Art. 5). [4]

Does adding another word to a logo distinguish it from an earlier registered trademark?

It depends on the word added. If there is an essential part, the comparison is first made using the essential part (Decision 2023Hu11180). [7] The Trademark Examination Guidelines exclude a non-distinctive part from consideration and focus on the distinctive part (Supplementary Standard 2, 3.1.10). [3] If there are 2 or more essential parts, the two trademarks are regarded as similar even if only one of them is similar (Decision 2023Hu10118). [8]

Can the applicant rely on the fact that no consumer has actually been confused?

The Trademark Examination Guidelines state that it is sufficient to assess whether general consumers are likely to be confused in an abstract and general sense. Specific and actual confusion of individual consumers is not considered (Supplementary Standard 2, 2.2.4). [3] However, if the general trade circumstances surrounding the goods show that there is clearly no risk of confusion, the trademarks can be assessed as not similar (the same section). [3]

Can a trademark held by an affiliated company of the same group also be a ground for rejection?

It can. The Trademark Examination Guidelines regard an affiliated company that is a different right holder as another person under Art. 34(1), subparagraph 7, even if it belongs to the same corporate group (Part 5, Chapter 7, 1.1.2). [3]

How DEFINE IP Law Firm handles this

At the pre-filing review stage, DEFINE IP Law Firm divides the mark into pronunciation, appearance, and concept and compares it with earlier registered trademarks. For a combined mark, we first decide which part is likely to be seen as the essential part and compare again on the basis of that part. We compare the goods on the basis of the similar group code, not the class. For questions about the similarity assessment of Korean trademarks, please write to contact@defineip.kr.

Sources

1. Trademark Act (상표법), Act No. 21134, in force from 11 November 2025. Article 2, Article 34(1), subparagraphs 7, 9 and 11, Article 34(1), subparagraph 8, Article 34(2), Article 35(1), (2) and (6), Article 38(3), Article 55(1) and (3), Article 89, Article 108(1), subparagraph 1, Article 117(1), subparagraph 1, Article 119(1), subparagraph 1, and (5), Article 121, Article 122(1) and (2), Article 190(1) and (2), Article 225(2) and (4), Article 230, Addenda (Act No. 19809, promulgated 31 October 2023, in force from 1 May 2024) Arts. 1 to 7. Article 34(2) of the immediately preceding version (Act No. 19711, in force from 15 March 2024). https://www.law.go.kr/법령/상표법 (verified 9 October 2026)
2. Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act (상표법 시행규칙), Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2120, in force from 17 June 2026. Article 50(2). https://www.law.go.kr/법령/상표법시행규칙 (verified 9 October 2026)
3. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Trademark Examination Guidelines (상표심사기준), MOIP Established Rule No. 5, in force from 10 December 2025. Part 5, Chapter 7 (main text 1 to 5, Supplementary Standard 1, Supplementary Standard 2). https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/상표심사기준 (verified 9 October 2026)
4. Ministry of Intellectual Property (지식재산처), Examination Guidelines on Similar Goods (유사상품 심사기준), MOIP Established Rule No. 6, in force from 6 January 2026. Article 2, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7(1), (2), (4) and (5), Addenda (No. 6) Art. 1. https://www.law.go.kr/행정규칙/유사상품심사기준 (verified 9 October 2026)
5. Supreme Court Decision 2020Hu10957 Decided December 30, 2020. https://www.law.go.kr/판례/(2020후10957) (verified 9 October 2026)
6. Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu1690 Decided February 9, 2017. https://www.law.go.kr/판례/(2015후1690) (verified 9 October 2026)
7. Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu11180 Decided October 25, 2024. https://www.law.go.kr/판례/(2023후11180) (verified 9 October 2026)
8. Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu10118 Decided June 5, 2026. https://www.law.go.kr/판례/(2023후10118) (verified 9 October 2026)
9. Supreme Court Decision 2024Do8174 Decided November 20, 2025. https://www.law.go.kr/판례/(2024도8174) (verified 9 October 2026)