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.

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
Illustration: Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS
Illustration: Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS
Illustration: Trademark Similarity: WILLIAMS-SONOMA versus WILLIAMS
Designated Goods
Incandescent light bulbs, soap and other goodsNon-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 articlesRelated service: Designs & trade marks ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗

Put your IP strategy into practice.