# Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS

A composite word mark is generally assessed by the appearance, sound and meaning of the wording as a whole. An independently distinctive element may also be relevant where consumers can recognize it as indicating origin.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/948417

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS A composite word mark is generally assessed by the appearance, sound and meaning of the wording as a whole. An independently distinctive element may also be relevant where consumers can recognize it as indicating origin. Trademarks 2023.11.09 published IPLEX 2 min read 2010 Hu 1763 Judgment [Trademark refusal] [Legal] A composite word mark may be compared as a whole or by a component that independently identifies source and can naturally be used separately in trade. Category Earlier registered Trademark 1 The Earlier registered Trademark 2 Applied-for mark Mark Designated Goods Incandescent light bulbs, soap and other goods Non-precious metal bowls, lamps and lighting equipment retail sales, etc. [Judgment] WILLIAMS-SONOMA consists of two words separated by a hyphen and does not form a new inseparable concept. Its length and the distinctiveness of WILLIAMS in Korea allowed identification by WILLIAMS alone. That element matched the earlier WILLIAMS marks, creating a risk of confusion on identical or similar goods and services. [Decisions] The court upheld the finding that the applied-for mark was similar to earlier marks 1 and 2. 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 Case-Law Summary ↗ Older Column: Technology-Based Listings for AI Companies and Technology Business Plans ↗ 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/948417
- 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/951873
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/948077
- 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