According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") and the cited trademark registered by the earlier application (registration No. 1 omitted: the Patent Office's registration No. 21, 1973): the trademark of this case (registration No. 21, 1973: hereinafter referred to as the "Patent Office") and the cited trademark registered by the earlier application (registration No. 1, 1973): the trademark of this case is similar in preparation for the "PLUS"; the trademark of this case is a combination of "lsA" and "PLUS", and its separation and observation is not an integral combination to the extent that it is deemed natural in the trade, and thus, it is justified that the trademark of this case is not a simple name and concept by "PLUS", and in such a case, it is likely to mislead or confuse the source of goods to consumers. Therefore, the rejection of the registration of this original trademark is justified.

However, in determining the similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by comprehensively and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in order to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods. Thus, even if any of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if a trademark as a whole can clearly avoid misconceptions or confusions as to the origin, it shall not be deemed similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu57, Jun. 30, 1995; 95Hu1494, Mar. 22, 1996).

Therefore, according to the records, the term "ls-PLUS" and "PLUS" are composed of 4 parts of the original trademark "ls-PLUS", and it is difficult to see that the combination is not a new concept nor a combination is made to the extent that it is natural if it is separately observed, the above two parts of the above two characters can be separately observed. Among them, the term "PLUS" is simple and commonly used, i.e., + registration number 2 omitted in relation to the designated goods of the category 39 categories of the original trademark "", "ONE-WITES US (registration number omitted)," "OPE-WITM (registration number omitted)," "PPEM (registration number omitted)," "PEM (OPEM)" (OPEM)" (OPEM (OPE) omitted, "PEM (OPEM)" (OPEM) omitted.

If so, the original trademark and the cited trademark are observed in the whole, objective, and separation from the perspective of ordinary consumers, it is not similar to each other. Accordingly, even if both trademarks are used in the same designated goods similar to the same designated goods, there is no concern for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source of goods. However, the court below held that there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the source of goods by the same name and concept as those of the quoted trademark in such a case on the premise that the original trademark is called "PLUS". Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of the similarity of trademarks, which affected the result of the trial decision, and 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 for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)