B. Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark

B. Although the applied trademark and the cited trademark have a little similar aspect in their names, both trademarks are clearly divided and recognized in terms of appearance, concept, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed as similar as a whole, considering that there is no concern for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

1. Whether a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act is determined by whether the external appearance, name, and concept might cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of a product by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing them. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is clearly possible to avoid confusion as to the origin by viewing the overall origin in light of other factors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu188,189, Sept. 22, 1987; 87Hu74, Dec. 8, 1987; 90Hu1222, Mar. 27, 1991).

2. The court below determined that since the trademark as a whole refers to "Nap," the trademark as a whole, it is hard to deny the probability that it may be abbreviationd only by "Nap," in view of today's commercial transaction customs, which practices that combines the original trademark with "Nap," and the cited trademark is called "Nap," "Nab" or "NB B," and the cited trademark is called as "Bp," and the cited trademark is called as "Nab", the two names are the same as the first, the second, and only the second, the second, the second and second, the second, the second and the bottom are the same as the second, and the two names are extremely similar when the two are referred as a whole, and thus, the two trademarks are extremely similar to the latter, and thus, both trademarks are likely to cause confusion, confusion, confusion, or confusion as to the origin of goods in the trade society, and each of the goods is identical or similar to the latter two goods. The court below held that the two trademarks are identical or similar to the latter two goods.

However, when comparing this original trademark and the prior registered trademark cited in the ruling of rejection (hereinafter referred to as the "human trademark"), the original trademark is called the "Nap" trademark without any specific meaning as the "Nap", which is derived from the applicant's trade name. However, the cited trademark is called the "Nap" as a trademark with several designs of "B" in the constituent part, and is called the "insemb, bb, liners and liners" with the intent of "nb, flicks". Thus, if the original trademark is separated and observed only by the "NF," both trademarks are similar in terms of name. However, the original trademark is not repeated, as the cited trademark with respect to simple text trademark whose "NF" is repeated two times, and there is a little degree of concept, and it cannot be said that there is no possibility of confusion as to the origin of goods as a whole, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of confusion as to the origin of goods as a whole.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the original trademark was similar to the cited trademark for the above reasons, and thus there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act in the original decision. There is a ground to point this out.

3. Therefore, the case shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)