[상표등록무효][공2000.4.15.(104),848]
[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks
[2] Criteria for determining similarity of a trademark
[3] Whether the trademark "M&S" and "M& Ms" are similar (affirmative)
[1] Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by whether there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods in trade, on the basis of an objective, overall, and comparative observation of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel about the trademark. Even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion as to the origin clearly, the trademark cannot be deemed similar if the whole can avoid confusion of the source clearly. However, even if there are different parts, if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mistake or confuse as to the origin due to a similar name or appearance, it shall be viewed as a similar trademark.
[2] Considering that today’s wide spread of advertisement and publicity media, telephone, etc., advertising the trademark using a voice medium, etc. or ordering goods by telephone, etc., it is the most important factor to determine the similarity of the text trademark in determining the similarity of the text trademark.
[3] According to comparison between the registered trademark M&S and the cited trademark "M&S", the registered trademark will be named as "M&S" or "M&S". The cited trademark may be named as "M&M" or "M&M". If the cited trademark is named as "M&M" or "MMMMMM", the two trademarks will be identical to those of "M&M" or "M&S", and if they are not identical to "M&M", the two trademarks will be identical to "M&M" or "M&S", the two trademarks will be identical to "M&M", and if they are not identical to "M/M" before and after the end, the two trademarks will be identical to "M&M", and the two trademarks will not be deemed identical to "M/M's trademark," the two trademarks will be identical to "M/M's trademark," and it will not be concluded that there is a little difference between the two trademarks, "after and after the end," and the two trademarks will not be identical to "M's."
[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act
[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2026 delivered on May 2, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1766) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1035 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 305) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2382 delivered on July 23, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 1787) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu344 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3015), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu931 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong197, 942)
Ez Rocopid (Patent Attorney Sick-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Masnx P&D pentel L.C. (Patent Attorney Park Young-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Hun-Ba285 dated August 29, 1997
The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. 원심심결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 이 사건 등록상표 "M & S"{(등록번호 1 생략)；지정상품：비스킷, 커스터드, 크래커, 쿠키, 쵸코릿, 페이스트리(밀가루로 만든 과자), 쇼트브레드, 푸딩, 식빵, 카스테라, 설탕, 봉밀；이하 '등록상표'라 한다}와 선등록상표인 "M & M's"{(등록번호 2 생략)；지정상품：캔디, 얼음사탕, 쵸코릿, 캐러멜, 누가, 건과자 등；이하 '인용상표(1)'이라 한다} 및 선등록상표 {(등록번호 3 생략)；지정상품：건과자, 비스킷, 드롭스, 아이스크림, 얼음사탕, 크래커, 쿠키, 웨이퍼스, 쵸코릿, 캐러멜, 누가, 아이스캔디, 셔어벗, 사탕조림, 양갱, 이하 '인용상표(2)'라 한다}를 대비하여, 등록상표와 인용상표들은 'M'과 '&'를 공유하고 있다고 하더라도 전체적으로 보아 외관이 상이하고, 각 상표들 모두 특별한 뜻을 지니고 있다고 할 수 없어 관념 또한 상이하며, 등록상표는 "엠앤에스"로 호칭될 것임에 반하여, 인용상표들은 "엠앤엠즈" 또는 "엠앤엠스"로 호칭될 것이고, 통상적으로 영어에서의 ''s' 부분은 극히 약하게 발음되므로 '엠앤엠' 부분이 강하게 청감되는 점을 감안하면 등록상표와 인용상표들은 호칭에 있어서도 유사하지 아니할 뿐만 아니라, 위 각 상표들과 같이 단순한 알파벳이 결합되어 구성된 상표는 그 구성의 단순성으로 인하여 수요자가 쉽게 구별할 수 있는 점 등에 비추어, 등록상표는 인용상표들의 지정상품과 동일·유사한 비스킷, 식빵, 쵸코릿 등의 상품에 사용하더라도 오인·혼동의 우려가 없다고 하여 등록상표는 인용상표들과 유사하지 아니하다고 판단하고, 등록상표가 상표법 제7조 제1항 제7호, 제9호, 제11호의 규정에 위반하여 등록된 것이어서 그 등록이 무효라는 심판청구인의 주장을 배척하였다.
2. Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by the objective, overall, and apart from the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of product, and on the basis of the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark, whether it may cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods in trade. Even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion as to the origin clearly, the trademark cannot be deemed similar if it is possible to avoid confusion as a whole. However, even if one of the different parts is similar, if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mistake or confuse because the name, name, or appearance is similar, it shall be deemed a similar trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Hu1035, Sept. 25, 1992; 97Hu2026, May 22, 1998). In addition, in determining whether a trademark is similar to the above one through a wide range of telephone or advertisement, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da364.
According to the records, the similarity between the registered trademark and the cited trademark (2) is likely to be referred to as "MWS" or "MWS", and the quoted trademark (1) can be referred to as "MMMM" or "MMMMM" or "MMMMMM". If the quoted trademark (1) is referred to as "MMMM" or "MMMM", the two trademarks will be referred to as "MMMM" or "MMM", the two trademarks will be referred to as "MMM" and "MMM", and if there is no difference between the two trademarks and the cited trademark "MM" and "MM", the two trademarks will be referred to as "any other similar trademark," and the two trademarks will be referred to as "any other similar trademark," and the two trademarks will be referred to as "any other similar trademark," and the two trademarks will be referred to as "any other trademark," and the two trademarks will not be referred to as "any other trademark," and it will be referred to as "any similar trademark," in light of Korean people's.
Nevertheless, the court below rejected the claimant's assertion on the ground that the registered trademark and the cited trademarks are not similar solely for the reasons indicated in its statement. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on determining the similarity of trademarks or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the decision. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
Therefore, the decision of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Patent Court corresponding to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)