Patent Court, Judgment of June 18, 2026, Case No. 2026Heo10010
|
Plaintiff's Prior-Used Trademark |
Defendant's Registered Trademark |
|
URSA
|
UR-AEK
|
Case Overview
The Plaintiff filed a petition for an invalidation trial against the Defendant's registered trademark "UR-AEK," on the ground that it was likely, in relation to the Plaintiff's well-known prior-used trademark "URSA," to cause confusion as to the source or to impair its distinctiveness or reputation. The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (KIPTAB) dismissed the petition, finding that the two trademarks were not similar and that there was no likelihood of confusion as to the source or of impairment of distinctiveness or reputation. In response, the Plaintiff filed an action seeking revocation of the KIPTAB's trial decision.
Summary of Judgment
The Patent Court held that "URSA" fell under a well-known trademark, taking into consideration its use over a long period since 1961, its continuous advertising and promotion, and its high market share and sales performance. The Court further found that the "-AEK" ("액", meaning "liquid" in Korean) portion of "UR-AEK" merely indicates a liquid form and thus has weak distinctiveness, while the "UR" portion of "URSA" has acquired strong recognition through long-term use and advertising. Accordingly, the Court held that the "UR" portion constitutes the dominant portion of both trademarks and that the two trademarks are identical in appearance and pronunciation.
In addition, the Court found that the designated goods of "UR-AEK", such as health drinks and energy drinks, are related to the liver-function-improving agent for which "URSA" is used, in terms of health and fatigue recovery. Accordingly, the Court held that ordinary consumers would be likely to perceive "UR-AEK" as a liquid-form product of "URSA" and thus mistake or be confused as to the source of the goods, and that the use of "UR-AEK" was likely to dilute the customer-attracting power and advertising power of "URSA," thereby impairing its distinctiveness or reputation.
The Court found that the prior-used trademark is a well-known trademark, and that, if the Defendant's registered trademark was used on health-related beverages, the customer-attracting power and advertising power embodied in the prior-used trademark would be dispersed and diluted across a variety of goods, giving rise to a likelihood of impairment of its distinctiveness or reputation. Accordingly, the Court held that the registration of the Defendant's trademark should be invalidated.