The meaning delivered to consumers by a trademark should be defined objectively by its appearance. If the trademark owner’s idea and intention of design are not expressed in the representation of a trademark, the determination of the meaning of a trademark cannot take the trademark owner’s subjective intention into account. It is because average consumers are unable to detect the internal idea of the trademark by its look, and also for the purpose of preventing the trademark function of identifying sources from becoming subjective. The plaintiff asserted that the disputed trademark “inova” combined the meanings of “Innovation” and “Nova.” However, the disputed trademark only has the alphabets without any representation of patterns. Average consumers cannot identify the idea meant to be expressed by the plaintiff only by the appearance of the disputed trademark. Also, the meaning delivered by the complainant’s trademark “INOA” failed to make an impression of “a new formulation without any Ammonia” as asserted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim asserted by the plaintiff that the two trademarks deliver different ideas to consumers is groundless.

The idea of a trademark