(b) Whether the trademark is similar to the "Korean language";

B. The case holding that, in comparison with the cited trademark registered prior to the original trademark "Korea" and the cited trademark "Korea", the component of the original trademark and the cited trademark "Korea" is merely the name of the Republic of Korea and thus cannot be deemed to have function as a trademark, since it is difficult to see that the goods of another person and the goods of another person have function as a trademark, and therefore, each part of the two trademarks, except for this, may not be deemed to be the essential part of the trademark, and thus, even if they are used in the same or similar goods, there is no possibility that ordinary consumers or consumers may confuse or confuse the origin of the goods.

In determining whether a trademark falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the issue of whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar shall be determined based on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods in light of the trade norms by observing objectively, comprehensively, and differently from their appearance, name, and concept in terms of objective, overall, and ideas. Even if there are similar parts among trademarks, it shall not be a similar trademark that is likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods when the overall observation is conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1222 delivered on March 27, 191).

The lower court determined that, in light of the comparison between the two trademarks, when the applicant filed an application on October 25, 1991 and the cited trademark registered priorly on August 22, 1992 (registration No. 233124), since the appearance of the two trademarks cannot be deemed to be a series of irregular trademarks in terms of name, title, and concept, the original trademark cannot be deemed to be a series of irregular trademarks, and thus, the original trademark shall be deemed to be "Korean language" or "Korean language", and thus, if the original trademark is named "Korean language", it cannot be excluded from the similarity of the two trademarks even if it is called "Korean language" and similar, and thus, it is likely for ordinary consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods if the two trademarks are used entirely on the same or similar goods, this trademark cannot be registered as a similar trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

However, the phrase "Korean characters" is merely a name of Korean characters, and it is difficult to see that the component part of the original trademark and the cited trademark "Korean characters" of the original trademark are "Korean characters," and it does not constitute a part of the trademark's essential or special modernization, since it is difficult to see that it has the function as a trademark by which general consumers or consumers can distinguish the goods of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu1239, Mar. 27, 191 and Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1239, Mar. 27, 191). Accordingly, even if the remainder of the two trademarks except this is different from all in comparison with the appearance, concept, and name, if they are used in the same or similar goods, it is not likely that general consumers or consumers

Nevertheless, the court below held that the original trademark is similar in cases where the original trademark is referred to as "Korean language" as well as in cases where the original trademark is referred to as "Korean language" on the grounds that the main trademark and the cited trademark are the same as the parts of the original trademark, and that the two trademarks are not registered pursuant to Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act. Thus, there is no error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the similarity of trademarks in the original trial decision, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial decision, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)