# Trademark Similarity: Ellis versus PERRY ELLIS

A composite mark need not always be pronounced or understood in its entirety. Where its elements are separable, an independently distinctive element may determine how the mark is referred to or understood; more than one such reading may be possible.

Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/952883

HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Trademark Similarity: Ellis versus PERRY ELLIS A composite mark need not always be pronounced or understood in its entirety. Where its elements are separable, an independently distinctive element may determine how the mark is referred to or understood; more than one such reading may be possible. Trademarks 2023.11.17 published IPLEX 2 min read 2007 Heo 3042 Trademark registration invalidation [Decisions] A composite mark may be identified by a separable dominant element when separate perception is natural. If one of its possible pronunciations or concepts is identical or similar to another mark, that can support a finding of similarity. Earlier registered mark Registered mark at issue [Judgment] 1. The marks PERRY ELLIS is the name of an American fashion designer. Its first-name and surname components can be perceived separately, allowing ELLIS to function independently. 2. Designated Goods The Class 25 goods were identical or similar to those of the earlier registration. [Decisions] When the earlier mark is identified by ELLIS, it has the same pronunciation as the registered mark. Use on the similar goods could therefore cause confusion. 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: ELOCOM versus Elecom ↗ Older Trademark Similarity: A Case-Law Summary ↗ 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/952883
- 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/954273
- https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/951873
- 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