A comprehensive indication means an indication of goods including various goods and is divided into comprehensive indication in a narrow sense, as recognised on January 1 2007, and comprehensive indication in a broad sense, as recognised on September 16 2008. A comprehensive indication in a broad sense means an indication of goods which falls under multiple similarity codes within the same class, for example clothing, and comprehensive indication in a narrow sense means an indication of goods which falls under the same similarity code within the same class, for example footwear.
For background information, the similarity code helps to judge similarity between goods or services efficiently, is conferred on each grouped goods and services based on similarity and consists of five characters including one letter and four numbers. For example, G2501 or S1311.
Designated goods having the same similarity code are considered as similar goods under the current examination practice of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Whether compared designated goods having the same similarity code are practically dissimilar is judged by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal and the Korean Patent Court, unless there are special circumstances.
In the previous system, in a case where an applicant would like to obtain a trade mark right for all designated goods falling under clothing, because suits, shirts and baseball clothing are classified as dissimilar goods due to a difference in distribution routes and stores of each of the goods, an applicant had no choice but to designate each specified indication. However, since the current system adopted comprehensive indication in a broad sense, an applicant can obtain a trade mark registration for 324 goods (exemplary designated goods suggested by KIPO) by designating only one comprehensive goods such as clothing.
In addition, based on the adoption of comprehensive indication in a broad sense, including at least two similarity codes, a reason of rejection against goods under some similarity codes can be issued. In this case, KIPO allows an applicant to amend the indicated goods to specific goods which fall under another similarity code that excludes all goods falling under the relevant similarity code.
In this regard, when an applicant amends the designated goods which fall under the relevant similarity code, the comprehensive indication in a broad sense and all specific goods which fall under another similarity code excluding the relevant similarity code should be deleted.
 |
| Michael Jung |
MUHANN Patent & Law Firm
5th Floor, Myeonglim Bldg
51-8 Nonhyeon-Dong, Gangnam-Gu
Seoul, 135-814
Korea
Tel: +82 2 511 4210
Fax: +82 2 511 4610
ip@muhann.com
www.muhann.com