​I. New Korean-Proposed Product Terms to be Included in the Nice Classification (13th Edition)​ 

The Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) recently announced that 14 product terms proposed by Korea have been approved at the 36th Session of the Committee of Experts of the Nice Union. These terms will be incorporated into the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification, which is scheduled to take effect in 2027 and is used by 96 member jurisdictions worldwide.

Among the newly adopted terms are several products from industries in which Korean companies maintain a strong global presence, including “flash memory chips” and “semiconductor image sensors.” In addition, the term “light sticks for events”, reflecting the growing global popularity of K-pop-related merchandise and entertainment products, has also been accepted.

Other newly adopted terms include products associated with emerging and expanding industries, such as “air showers for clean rooms” and “drying apparatus for pets.”

The inclusion of these product names in the Nice Classification is expected to facilitate trademark filing practices by providing internationally recognized standard terminology for goods that previously may have required more detailed specification or clarification.

The newly adopted terms will become available for trademark applications filed under the 13th Edition of the Nice Classification from 2027 onward. Businesses planning international trademark filings involving these products may wish to take note of the upcoming changes.

​II. Precedents​ 

The Intellectual Property Court Decision 2026Heo10006 dated April 29, 2026

​a. Background of the Case​ 

Registered Mark (Defendant's Mark):

Reg. No. 40-2058774 / Reg. Date July 27, 2023 / Appl. Date December 10, 2020 / Designated Goods (Class 31): Unprocessed tomatoes; grape tomatoes, fresh; fresh fruits and vegetables; cherry tomatoes, fresh; fresh tomatoes; plum tomatoes, fresh.

Prior-Registered Mark (Plaintiff's Mark):

Reg. No. 40-1348236 / Reg. Date April 5, 2018 / Appl. Date August 8, 2017 / Designated Goods (Class 31): Fresh fruits and vegetables.

The owner of the prior-registered trademark “SWEETA” (the “Prior-Registered Mark” or “Plaintiff's Mark”) filed an invalidation action against the trademark “sweetto” (the “Registered Mark” or “Defendant's Mark”), arguing that the two marks were similar and designated identical or similar goods, including fresh fruits and vegetables.

The Plaintiff asserted that both marks shared the element “sweet” and that consumers were likely to be confused as to the source of the goods. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought invalidation of the Registered Mark pursuant to Article 34(1)(7) of the Korean Trademark Act.

The Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (KIPTAB) rejected the invalidation action, finding that the marks were not similar. The Plaintiff subsequently appealed the decision to the Intellectual Property Court.

​b. Summary of the Court's Decision​ 

The Court upheld the KIPTAB decision and concluded that the Registered Mark “sweetto” was not similar to the Prior-Registered Mark “SWEETA.”

The Court first noted that the common element “sweet” directly conveys the meaning of “sweet” and describes a characteristic or quality of the designated goods, such as fresh fruits. As a result, the shared element was considered to possess little source-identifying significance.

Given the weak distinctiveness of the common element, the Court found that consumers would be more likely to focus on the remaining portions of the marks, namely “to” and “A.”

In particular, the Court held that the marks differ in appearance due to their different structures and endings; the pronunciations “Swee-to” and “Swee-ta” create different overall sounds, especially because of the distinct final vowels; and the marks convey different impressions and meanings. The Registered Mark may evoke the concept of a “sweet tomato” or another coined expression, whereas the Prior-Registered Mark does not convey a particular concept.

Considering the marks as a whole, the Court concluded that consumers were unlikely to mistake one mark for the other or assume a common commercial source. Accordingly, the Registered Mark was found not to violate Article 34(1)(7) of the Korean Trademark Act.

​c. Our comment​ 

This case demonstrates that the existence of a common element between two trademarks does not necessarily lead to a finding of similarity. Where the shared element has a descriptive meaning in relation to the designated goods, greater importance may be given to the remaining portions of the marks when assessing trademark similarity.

The decision provides another example of the Korean courts evaluating trademarks based on their overall impression, taking into account the distinctiveness of each element.