# Trademark Similarity Case: Ritz Plaza Hotel

The similarity assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning against the overall impression the marks make on ordinary consumers and traders.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/925937

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: Ritz Plaza Hotel The similarity assessment considers appearance, sound and meaning against the overall impression the marks make on ordinary consumers and traders. Trademarks 2023.10.05 published IPLEX 3 min read [Principles of Judgment] Service-mark similarity is assessed through overall appearance, pronunciation and concept, considering how ordinary consumers perceive the marks and whether their sources may be confused. Earlier registered Service Mark 1 Earlier registered Service Mark 2 Applied-for service mark Mark [Comparison of the service marks] 1. Similarities of appearance The application combines a petal graphic with Ritzplaza Hotel. The earlier marks use different graphic arrangements, including a crown, bow-tie imagery and PARIS wording. 2. Pronunciation HOTEL describes the services, while PLAZA is commonly used in connection with shopping centers and large public spaces. RITZ can therefore function as the application's dominant element, producing the same or a similar pronunciation to the earlier marks. [Decisions] Despite different overall appearances, the shared dominant pronunciation created a likelihood of confusion for the designated hotel services. 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 IP Lecture for NH Seed’s Second Cohort: Announcement ↗ Older Column: Preparing a Technology Business Plan for Special Listing ↗ 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/925937
- 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/926440
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/922444
- 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