# Trademark Similarity: GRAZIA versus GRACIA

Where the components of a mark are not naturally inseparable, an independently distinctive element may determine how consumers pronounce or understand it.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/791422

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: GRAZIA versus GRACIA Where the components of a mark are not naturally inseparable, an independently distinctive element may determine how consumers pronounce or understand it. Trademarks 2023.02.06 published IPLEX 3 min read 2008 Heo 6765 Trademark refusal [General principles of similarity assessment] Unless its components are inseparably combined, a composite mark may be perceived through an independently distinctive component. Similarity in one of its possible pronunciations or concepts may support a finding of similarity. Earlier registered mark Applied for trademark Mark Designated Goods DC generators, incandescent bulbs, etc. Catalogues, books and other goods. [Similarity of the marks] The applied-for mark combines the Italian words “GRAZIA”, meaning grace, favor or a female name, and “Casa”, meaning house or home. “Casa” appears in much smaller, thinner lettering at the lower right. The combination creates no inseparable new concept, and “GRAZIA” is not descriptive of the relevant goods or services. Consumers may therefore perceive and pronounce the mark by “GRAZIA” alone. The earlier mark consists of the female name “GRACIA” in uppercase letters. Its possible Korean pronunciations include forms similar to “GRAZIA”. The marks differ in appearance, and their concepts cannot readily be compared. However, when the applied-for mark is referred to as “GRAZIA”, their pronunciations are similar. [Designated goods] The applied-for mark's video cameras are similar to relevant goods under the earlier mark, considering their producers, sellers and consumers. [Decisions] The marks and some of their goods or services are similar, creating a likelihood of confusion as to source. The court found the marks similar. 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: A Pictorial-Mark Case ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: ELIN versus Eryn Brinie ↗ 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/791422
- 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/792119
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/790420
- 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