[2] The case holding that the registered trademark and the cited trademark are not similar to each other when comprehensively observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark

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

[2] The case holding that the registered trademark and the cited trademark are not similar to each other when comprehensively observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark

[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, if it is deemed that the trademark is easily related to another person's well-known trademark or goods or is closely related to another person's trademark or goods and causes mistake or confusion in the origin of goods, compared with the composition, concept, etc. of the two trademarks, it shall not be registered.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods in trade by observing two trademarks used for the same kind of goods in terms of appearance, name, concept, etc. in a whole, objective, and separation from the perspective of appearance, name, concept, etc., and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. Even if one of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, it shall not be deemed similar if it can avoid confusion of the origin clearly as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3050 delivered on February 25, 200).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in determining the similarity between the trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case, the two trademarks are different from their appearance because there are many differences in the number of letters and the cited trademark of this case, and the cited trademark of this case has no special concept, and the cited trademark of this case has the meaning of 'gal, sal, sal, sal, sal, sal, and sal.e., the two trademarks are not similar. 'Bud, joint and several 'bud,' in the composition of the trademark of this case, 'Bud,' and 'Bud,' in the composition of the trademark of this case, 'Bud, 'Bud,' and 'Bud,' respectively 'Bud,' and 'Bud,' and 'Bud,' in the composition of the trademark of this case, 'Bud,' and 'Bud,' the difference between the cited trademark of this case and 'Bud,' in the composition of this case.

However, even if the part of the "Budvar" of the trademark of this case is called as "Budvar" as alleged in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be viewed as a strong drinking, and it has the strong strong drinking, and it is not similar to the name of "Budio" of the cited trademark, and it cannot be viewed as similar to the name of "Budio" of the cited trademark, and further, the trademark of this case is combined with "Budio joint and several liability" and "Budiovar" in the composition of the trademark, and the "Budio joint and several liability" contains more main elements than "Budiovar", and it can be easily known that the judgment of the court below is not appropriate because part of "Budio joint and severalfk" is written as "Budio joint and several liability," and it is not appropriate to apply the trademark of this case as a whole in the case where the trademark of this case is inconsistent with the concept of "Budio" and "Budiovar's product's product's product's product and product's product's product's common concept.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In the case of a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, even if the trademark itself is not a similar trademark, if the trademark is easily connected with another person's well-known trademark, goods, etc. or is deemed closely related to another person's trademark or goods, etc. and causes mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods, it shall not be registered (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu173 delivered on February 13, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the trademark of this case does not fall under Article 7 (1) 9 through 11 of the Trademark Act, since the trademark of this case was not easily connected to the cited trademark in light of the differences in the composition and concept of both trademarks, and there is no possibility of causing mistake or confusion as to the source of goods since the cited trademark of this case was not easily connected to the cited trademark.

However, as the judgment of the court below is examined, if there is no possibility of confusion about the source of goods or business because the cited trademarks are not easily connected to the cited trademarks from the trademark of this case, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or incomplete deliberation, even if the cited trademarks were not examined first as to whether they are well-known trademarks or not. According to the records, it is difficult to view that the cited trademarks are easily related or closely related to the cited trademarks because the cited trademarks contain "Bud" among the ironers. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the cited trademarks do not fall under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. Therefore, the ground for appeal No. 2 is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)