Kia is reportedly undergoing difficulties in registering its Sorento sport utility vehicle with the U.S. patent authorities. The U.S. government has initially turned down Kia's application, citing the existing registration of a U.S. boat company, named Sorrento. Kia has also been forced to change the name for its new top-of-the-line luxury sedan, slated to hit the market early next year, from Regent to Opirus, as the Regent had already been a patented brand of German automaker Opel.

On October 24, 2002, Kwang-rim KIM, Commissioner of the KIPO, had a patent conference with Muhyiddin Yassin, Minister of the Ministry of Domestic Trade & Consumer Affairs in Malaysia. They agreed to increase cooperation in dealing with patent applications between Korea and Malaysia as follows:

(1) Regarding patent applications filed with the Malaysian Intellectual Property Division (MIPD), the KIPO shall handle the examination of those patent applications. The particulars will be executed after the working level consultations.

(2) When a Korean applicant files a patent application with the MIPD, the patent application can be registered at the MIPD only with the submission of a copy of the Letters Patent issued by the KIPO. In this case, an additional search for a prior art or an examination is not necessary at the MIPD. The particulars will be executed after the working level consultations.

(3) To support the development of the electronic system of the MIPD, the KIPO shall dispatch specialists in the field of Information Technology, and provide the MIPD with consulting services. Also, the KIPO shall enlarge training opportunities for the officials of the MIPD by inducing them to participate in the training programs on international intellectual property rights, supervised by the International Patent Training Institute of the KIPO.

According to the Article 10 Paragraph 2 of the Korean Trademark Act, the classes of goods referred to under paragraph(1) of this Article shall not be construed to limit the extent of similarity of the goods. The classes of goods under Korean Trademark Law and Trademark Enforcement Regulations were legislated only to meet the convenience of administrations, and not to be legal standards for deciding the similarity of the goods compared. Moreover, the similarity between the designated goods should be decided in view of the fact whether or not the goods are subject to be misunderstood as being manufactured or saled by same manufactuers when using an identic or similar trademark on the goods compared.

(Patent Court Division 3, No. 2002 huh 2501, August 29, 2002)

cf) Article 10 ¡¼One Application for One Trademark¡½
Paragraph(1) Any person who intends to file an application for trademark registration, shall designate one category or more of goods with respect to the categories of goods as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, and make an application for each trademark. In such cases, where an application seeks registration for both goods and services at the same time, such an intent must be stated in the application.