[2] The case holding that it does not constitute a similar trademark

[3] Criteria for determining a trademark in conflict with a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act

[2] In preparation for the similarity between the registered trademark (registration No. 1 omitted) and the pre-registered cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted), even though the figure part at the bottom of the registered trademark is similar to the cited trademark, considering that the figure part is not characterized by the proportion or its concept in the entire trademark, it is not a part that leads to ordinary consumers' attention in the overall composition, but it is composed of the central character part and this part is an essential part, and it is difficult to see that both trademarks are similar since both trademarks are likely to cause mistake and confusion with their figure parts.

[3] In the case of a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, even if the trademark itself cannot be deemed a similar trademark, compared to the composition, concept, etc. of the two trademarks, if it is deemed that the trademark is easily connected with another person's well-known trademark, goods, etc., or closely related to another person's trademark or goods, and thus, it may not be registered if the trademark causes mistake

1. Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by whether the two trademarks used for the same product are likely to cause mistake or confusion to ordinary consumers or traders as to the origin of the product in light of the common sense of transaction by observing the two trademarks objectively, comprehensively, and externally in terms of their appearance, name, and concept in three aspects. Even if there are different parts among trademarks, if they are similar to each other and are likely to cause confusion in their name or concept, it shall be deemed as a similar trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 84Hu70 delivered on December 26, 1984).

However, in comparison with the similarity between the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) and the pre-registered cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted), if we look at the similarity between the pre-registered trademark of this case and the pre-registered cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted), it is difficult to view both trademarks as similar since the part of the pre-registered trademark of this case does not have anything similar to the cited trademark, but considering that the figure part in this case is not characterized by the proportion of the entire trademark or its concept in the whole trademark, it is not a part that leads to general consumers' attention in its whole composition, but it is composed of the central character part and this part is the essential part, and as a whole, it cannot be said that both trademarks are likely to cause mistake and confusion with the above figure part, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination

2. In the case of a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, even if the trademark itself cannot be a similar trademark, compared to the composition, concept, etc. of the two trademarks, if it is recognized that the trademark is easily connected with another person's well-known trademark, goods, etc., or closely connected with another person's trademark, goods, etc., and thus causes mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods, it shall not be registered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Hu1370, Mar. 23, 1993; 93Hu53, Jun. 11, 1993; 95Hu576, Oct. 12, 1995).

However, according to the records, the figure part at the bottom of the trademark of this case is composed of two or more parts of the figure at the bottom of the trademark of this case, and it is common in the cited trademark and the idea of trademark composition consisting of two or more parts of the figure at the bottom of the trademark of this case, but the figure at the cited trademark consisting of two or more parts of the figure at the bottom of the trademark of this case, and the figure at the cited trademark consisting of two or more parts of the figure at the bottom of the trademark of this case, and it is not recognized that the trademark of this case falls under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, since the figure at the bottom of the trademark of this case is easily connected or closely related to the cited trademark or the goods thereof. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case falls under Article 9 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act.

The court below held that the trademark of this case does not correspond to the above law merely by comparing only the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark itself, and there is an error of law as pointed out in the arguments. However, as a result, the above illegality does not constitute a ground for reversal of original adjudication, and it does not constitute an error of law such as incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, etc. in original adjudication.

3. Examining the reasoning of the original decision in light of the record, the decision of the court below that the registered trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act is just and there is no violation of law, such as omission of judgment that affected the decision of the court, and the precedents of party members cited as arguments are not appropriate for different cases to be invoked. All of the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)