[거절사정][공1993.11.15.(956),2976]
A. Criteria for determining similarity of combined trademarks
B. Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark
A. The combined trademark does not form a name or concept only based on the entire constituent part. Unless each constituent part is an indivisible combination to such an extent that it cannot be natural if observed separately from each constituent part, the two trademarks are similar in the event that only a part of the constituent part is distinguishable from that of another's trademark, and if one trademark can think of two or more names and concepts, and even if one name and concept are not identical or similar to that of another's trademark, if the other name and concept are identical or similar to that of another's trademark.
(b) The term “(a)” and “(b)” of the applied trademark consists of two elements, namely, LG and TwWW allss or Twals, and the applied trademark is not an integral combination so far as it is considered natural to separately observe and observe these two elements, so that the applied trademark can be called the “sur 3” and “sur 2” and “sur 2” may cause misconception or confusion with ordinary consumers or consumers as to the origin of the goods if they are used in the same kind of goods.
Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)
[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)
[Defendant-Appellee] Patent Attorney Song Man-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Appellate Trial Office of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (Korean Intellectual Property Office), 91Na1228, 1229 (Joint Trial Office) delivered on December 19, 192
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.
The grounds of appeal by applicants are examined.
A combined trademark is not a name or concept only based on the whole composition, but it is not an integral combination to the extent that it is not natural and unrecognizable if it is separately observed by dividing each constituent part, as long as there is a simple name or concept by only a part of its constituent part, and if it is possible to think of two or more names and concepts from one trademark, even though one name or concept is not identical or similar to another's trademark's name or concept, if another name or concept is similar to that of another's trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Hu561, Sept. 10, 1991; 92Hu1462, Dec. 24, 1992).
The court below held that since the applicant applied on May 7, 190 and applied for the trademark on June 25, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the original trademark) which was rejected on June 25, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "secondly"), [a g 1] and [b g 2] and another person's registered trademark (which is referred to as the cited trademark subsequent thereto) by earlier application] in comparison with the above g 3], the original trademark can be referred to as "a committee" or "Lel", and the cited trademark is referred to as "Tz", so its name is identical or similar as "Tz", and its concept is similar in common, so it is recognized that the trademark is identical or similar as a whole even if its appearance is different, and the designated goods are also identical, so it is not acceptable that the original trademark can not be registered as a similar trademark falling under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act, and that there is no error in the judgment of the court below that there is no possibility of misunderstanding or confusion between the original trademark and the other consumers.
Therefore, the appeal by the applicant is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)