# Trademark Similarity: ELIN versus Eryn Brinie

Analysis of a dominant element or separate component supports the assessment of the mark as a whole. Even if one aspect of appearance, sound or meaning is similar, the marks may remain distinguishable where consumers' overall impressions clearly avoid confusion about origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/790420

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: ELIN versus Eryn Brinie Analysis of a dominant element or separate component supports the assessment of the mark as a whole. Even if one aspect of appearance, sound or meaning is similar, the marks may remain distinguishable where consumers' overall impressions clearly avoid confusion about origin. Trademarks 2023.02.03 published IPLEX 2 min read 2008 Heo 12821 Trademark refusal [Principles of assessment] Separate or dominant-element analysis assists the overall assessment; it does not replace it. Even if one aspect is similar, marks are dissimilar where their overall impressions clearly avoid confusion. Applied for trademark Applied-for service mark Mark Designated Goods Money belts, leather shoes, etc. Advertising Planning, Commercial Information [Overall comparison] 1. Appearance and concept The marks differ markedly in spelling, letter count, devices, capitalization and spacing. No meaningful conceptual comparison is possible. 2. Pronunciation The applied-for mark is pronounced “Eryn Brinie”, while the earlier-filed mark is pronounced “ELIN”. Their overall pronunciations differ. [Separate observation] Even when “Eryn” is considered separately, its pronunciation is not sufficiently close to “ELIN” to cause confusion in this case. The court considered consumers' ability to distinguish the English R and L sounds. [Decisions] The applied-for mark was used and pronounced in full in advertising and trade after filing. Consumers increasingly recognized designers' full names as marks, including both given and family names; the court referred to Supreme Court case 2008Hu4783 of 9 April 2009. Separating the components was therefore unnatural in this context. Assessed as a whole, the marks differed in appearance and pronunciation and were dissimilar. 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: GRAZIA versus GRACIA ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: RABVAC versus LAVAC ↗ 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/790420
- 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/791422
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/789445
- 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