Executive Summary
— Lipstick sign containing “Nudism” held similar to a registered trademark; acquittal reversed and remanded
On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of Korea reversed the lower court’s acquittal and remanded a case under the Trademark Act, which turned on whether a composite mark used in selling cosmetics (lipstick) was similar to another party’s registered trademark (Supreme Court, rendered on Nov. 20, 2025, 2024Do8174).
In this case, the trademark owner held the registered trademark “누디즘 NUDISM” (Class 3, including lipstick, etc.). The defendant advertised and sold lipstick on an online open-market platform using the designation “CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick.” The lower court treated “CATALIC” as the dominant portion of the designation and, on that basis, found the marks dissimilar and entered an acquittal.
However, the Supreme Court reiterated that the similarity of a composite mark is assessed, in principle, by overall impression (whole-mark observation). Where a dominant portion exists, however, the analysis requires a comparison focusing on the dominant portion(s). Here, the Court found that each element—“CATALIC,” “Narcisse,” and “Nudism”—possessed distinctiveness, and it could not readily be said that only one element created a markedly stronger impression.
The Supreme Court further held that “Nudism,” unlike “nude,” which is commonly used in color cosmetics, is not easily regarded as a generic or merely descriptive (technical) indication, and that it retains distinctiveness in relation to the goods at issue. The Court also noted that the defendant displayed the designation over multiple lines in advertisements; in that context, the “Nudism” element could independently perform a source-identifying function and therefore constituted a dominant portion in its own right.
Accordingly, the registered trademark “누디즘 NUDISM” and the “Nudism” portion of the accused designation are identical in spelling and pronunciation, making the marks similar. Because the goods were also identical or similar, the Court found a likelihood of source confusion. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the lower court misunderstood the governing principles on trademark similarity and failed to conduct a full review, and accordingly reversed and remanded the acquittal.
This decision is viewed as clarifying that, in composite trademarks, the dominant portion cannot readily be confined to a single element; multiple dominant portions may be recognized in light of the distinctiveness of each component, the manner of combination, and marketplace realities.