# Trademark Similarity: PRAGRAN versus PROGRAF

The cited Trademark Act provision requires the applied-for mark to be identical or similar to another person's earlier registration and to cover identical or similar goods. Similarity is assessed objectively through the mark's overall appearance, sound and meaning.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/788063

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: PRAGRAN versus PROGRAF The cited Trademark Act provision requires the applied-for mark to be identical or similar to another person's earlier registration and to cover identical or similar goods. Similarity is assessed objectively through the mark's overall appearance, sound and meaning. Trademarks 2023.01.31 published IPLEX 4 min read 2003 Heo 168 Trademark registration invalidation [General principles of similarity assessment] The provision applied in this case required an identical or similar earlier-filed registered mark used for identical or similar goods. Mark similarity is assessed objectively and as a whole through appearance, pronunciation and concept. Cited mark Registered mark at issue Mark Designated Goods Central nervous system medicine, peripheral nervous system medicine [Similarity assessment] 1. Whether “PRO” can be separated from the cited mark “PRO” may suggest professional quality but does not directly describe the relevant medicines. Although many pharmaceutical marks containing “PRO” coexist and the element may be weakly distinctive, both marks are continuous coined expressions without a definite meaning. It would therefore be inappropriate to separate “PROGRAF” and consider only “GRAF”. 2. Appearance and concept Both marks have seven uppercase letters and share several letters, but differ in the third and final letters: A/O and N/F. The familiar “PRO” opening of the cited mark contributes to a different visual impression. Neither coined mark has a definite concept for comparison. 3. Pronunciation The Korean pronunciations of “PRAGRAN” and “PROGRAF” differ at the opening and ending. The final F is ordinarily pronounced with a distinct Korean “peu” syllable, while the familiar “PRO” opening also stands out. Considering the tendency to emphasize a mark's beginning, the court found the overall pronunciations dissimilar. [Decisions] The marks differ in appearance and pronunciation and are unlikely to cause confusion. The registered mark was therefore not barred by the earlier mark under the provision applied in this case. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Designs & trade marks ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Trademark Similarity: SERA versus Ceragem ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: How Courts Assess Similar Appearance ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.01 TikTok for confectionery: dilution can prevent registration in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10379 explains why different goods and later commercial success did not overcome the reputation and distinctiveness of TikTok. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.30 Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후10504 separates an intention to launch from actual use and objective obstacles beyond the owner’s control. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.29 An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? The 010PAY decision, 2025허10405, considers actual transactions, revenue and the proper subject of Korean trade mark scope proceedings. ↗ Read article

- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/788063
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/trademark#related-insights
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/788779
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/784427
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771