In Roadstar Co. Ltd. v. Roadstar Ansea Investment Pte Ltd., the owner of a registration on the trademark ROADSTAR in respect of electronic instruments and apparatus filed a cancellation action against the registration obtained for the same mark by Roadstar Ansea Investment Pte Ltd. in respect of services relating to the processing of electronic products by consignment. The Trial Board of the Korean Industrial Property Office (KIPO) held that the two marks were confusingly similar in view of the close association between the respective goods and services. On appeal, the Appellate Trial Board of the KIPO reversed the decision of the Trial Board and held that the two marks were not similar, in view of the differences between a trademark and a service mark on the one hand and the difference between the channels of trade on the other. In a further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Trial Board and ruled that there were sufficient grounds for canceling the service mark registration, directing that the case be reconsidered by the Appellate Trial Board. The decision of the Supreme Court was reversed by the Appellate Trial Board on procedural grounds, but an appeal has been filed from the decision of the Appellate Trial Board which is still pending.

Up to now, the KIPO has been routinely granting registrations for service marks over prior identical or similar trademarks in the names of third parties for goods similar to the services. Although the ultimate outcome of this case is still unclear, it is possible that the KIPO will change its present examination practice and undertake a search for identical or similar marks in related classes, in view of the ruling by the Supreme Court.