# Trademark Similarity Case: BRAVA Unless its elements form a naturally inseparable whole, a composite mark may be referred to or understood by a distinctive part. A single mark may therefore have more than one recognizable pronunciation or meaning. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/939826 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity Case: BRAVA Unless its elements form a naturally inseparable whole, a composite mark may be referred to or understood by a distinctive part. A single mark may therefore have more than one recognizable pronunciation or meaning. Trademarks 2023.10.26 published IPLEX 6 min read 2003 Heo 5552 Trademark refusal [Legal] A composite mark may be identified by separable elements where that is natural in trade. A shared pronunciation or concept can support similarity. Goods are assessed by their characteristics, uses and trade circumstances to determine whether consumers may assume a common source. Cited mark 1 Cited mark 2 Applied-for mark Mark Designated Goods Former Class 11 under Article 6, Appendix 1 of the Enforcement Rules of the Trademark Act, before amendment by Ordinance No. 83 of February 23, 1998: baby bottles, teats, teethers, medicine dispensers, weaning utensils, cotton swabs, thermometers, abdominal binders, infrared therapy lamps and sterilization equipment. Class 10 under Annex 1 to Article 6 of the former Trademark Act Enforcement Rules, before amendment by Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy Ordinance No. 146 of 24 December 2001: hearing aids for the hard of hearing, ear plugs, ear moulds, hooks, wax guards, vents, cords, cases, screwdrivers and brushes for hearing aids. Class 10 under the former Trademark Act Enforcement Rules before the December 24, 2001 amendment: medical devices for breast enlargement [Comparison] 1. Whether the sign is similar 1) Appearance This case applied-for trademark is a character trademark consisting of the English alphabet ‘BRAVA’, and the cited trademark 1 is a combined trademark consisting of the figure portion on the left and the upper and lower parts of the English alphabet ‘RIOBRAVO’, and the cited trademark 2 is a character trademark composed of the English alphabet ‘BRAVO’, and its overall appearance is different. 2) Pronunciation and concept BRAVA expresses applause or praise addressed to a woman and would be pronounced “Beuraba” in Korean. The RIOBRAVO wording in cited mark 1 can be separated into RIO and BRAVO. BRAVO conveys applause and is close in pronunciation and meaning to BRAVA. Cited mark 2 consists of BRAVO and shares the same similarity. The marks differed visually but were similar in pronunciation and concept. 2. Designated Goods. The application's goods were medical breast-enlargement devices. Their particular purpose, users and distribution channels distinguished them from the baby-care, general medical and hearing-aid goods in the cited registrations. By contrast, cited mark 1 covers feeding bottles, nipples, weaning utensils, teethers, dosing devices, cotton swabs, thermometers, abdominal supports, infrared treatment devices and sterilizing apparatus. These are baby-care or home and hospital medical products, generally manufactured by baby-product or medical-device companies and sold to consumers or hospitals through those specialist outlets. Cited mark 2 covers hearing aids and directly related products, generally made by medical-device manufacturers and sold through medical-device outlets to consumers with hearing impairments. The goods differed in characteristics, purpose, manufacturers, sales channels and consumers and were not considered similar. [Decisions] Although the marks were similar, their designated goods were neither identical nor 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 Case: Sinjeonggol Traditional Bone Soup ↗ Older IP Lecture for the Second NH Seed Cohort ↗ 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/939826 - 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/940245 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/939721 - 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