tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post116065075915762108..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: SOUTH KOREA BUCKS THE TRENDVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1160730295118919842006-10-13T10:04:00.000+01:002006-10-13T10:04:00.000+01:00I hate to say, but this is unsurprising. KIPO exam...I hate to say, but this is unsurprising. KIPO examiners and Korean courts usually take a very strict interpretation of each individual element. Circle, Writing, Stars, Black/white/green all non-distinct. More interesting perhaps is the way KIPO really takes words such as "Star" as non-distinct as they can describe a best quality product (which really amuses me since the Korean brand Samsung literally means "three stars").<BR/><BR/>As for the anti-foreign angle, it cannot be ruled out quickly, but I got some food for thought. Starbucks Korea is half owned by the Korean conglomerate Shinsaegae (which is distantly related to Samsung). The US branch only gets about 4% of gross sales in Korea. Effectively it is a Korean operation owned by a major Chaebol. They had some pretty big guns on this (and...um..."connections") somehow I guarantee you.<BR/><BR/>Finally I wonder how all of this will effect the "juicy" bar (a place of ill repute let us say) prominent in the foreigner area of Seoul named "Starbutts".Dram Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10838582542640042261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1160722817861519552006-10-13T08:00:00.000+01:002006-10-13T08:00:00.000+01:00These marks will be confused by almost any standar...These marks will be confused by almost any standard worldwide. However, I understand that the South Korean courts have a habit of finding against non-korean companies so the result seems unsurprising.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1160675254668748782006-10-12T18:47:00.000+01:002006-10-12T18:47:00.000+01:00no likelihood of consumer confusion. i would rathe...no likelihood of consumer confusion. i would rather say that its owner attempts to derive unfair benefit from the use of the starpreya logoMichael Kosmopouloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07952687200626806449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1160656569800199592006-10-12T13:36:00.000+01:002006-10-12T13:36:00.000+01:00Yes, I'd agree. As a consumer I'd assume some eco...Yes, I'd agree. As a consumer I'd assume some economic linkage, even if I was aware of the forensic differences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com