Hewlett Packard Enterprise's ("HPE") trademark application for the Element Logo was initially refused by the Ministry of Intellectual Property ("MOIP"; formerly the Korea Intellectual Property Office or "KIPO") on the basis that it is a "simple and common" device lacking in distinctiveness. The Logo had been continuously used, however, since 2015, on HPE's products such as physical servers and storage platforms, and a non-glossy variant of the Logo "," had been used with the "Hewlett Packard Enterprise" name as part of the mark in advertising and marketing materials. 

HPE thus appealed the rejection to the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board ("IPTAB") to seek registration on the basis of acquired distinctiveness and succeeded, despite the simplicity of the design. Even without the submission of favorable consumer survey results, the IPTAB was persuaded that the Element Logo had been widely used on its own based on the sales volume and market share of the products HPE had sold bearing the mark. In addition, the IPTAB recognized that the use of the "" logo had contributed to the public's awareness that the Element Logo is a source identifier, agreeing with HPE that the "" portion – although always used together with the Hewlett Packard Enterprise name – nevertheless maintained its individuality and could be perceived separately from the word portion. 

Obtaining this registration for the Element Logo was a significant win for HPE because successfully demonstrating secondary meaning under Korean practice remains very challenging. Although the Trademark Act was amended in 2014 to lower the bar such that the relevant mark no longer has to be "remarkably recognized among consumers", and only needs to be "recognizable to consumers" as the source-identifier of a certain entity, the number of marks granted registration based on acquired distinctiveness has remained low. The mark as used has to be nearly identical to the mark for which secondary meaning is claimed, and the products/services in connection with which the mark was used have to be practically identical to the designated goods/services.