(a) Whether or not the cited trademark is similar to the cited trademark with the mark "Lacoste" written in the main body of the trademark containing malicious diagrams and the word "Crocdil" and the word "Lacoste" written in the English language;

(b) Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

A. The cited trademark is a trademark with the word "Crodtile" written together with the word "Crodtile". The cited trademark is a trademark with the word "Lacoste" written in the musical figure and the figure, and both trademarks are different in appearance and name, but in terms of the concept, the word "Crodtile" in the original trademark is generally the word "crodtile" in the original trademark, and the figure portion is generally the word "crodtile" in the expression of the musical language. The cited trademark is perceived as "hrodoxe" in the musical figure and the musical figure, but it is only recognized as "hrocoste" in the expression of the musical figure and the musical figure, so both trademarks are identical in terms of their concept, and even if they are designated goods, they may not be ruled out to cause confusion as to the designated goods of the same kind as the designated goods.

(b) The similarity of trademarks should be determined not by the same degree, but by the method of objectively, comprehensively, as a whole, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, and determining whether there is a concern for general consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of each of the designated goods in transactions of each of the designated goods based on the direct-based perception that ordinary consumers feel two trademarks.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu47 delivered on December 27, 1983, 83Hu66 delivered on February 28, 1984, and 85Hu86 delivered on June 24, 1986

Patent Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 85 Section 360 dated April 29, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the original adjudication in light of the record, the court below's decision is just in the position that the original trademark applied for April 19, 1984 is identical to another person's prior registration application (registration number omitted), which was filed on August 11, 1983, and maintained the first examination rejection by Articles 16 and 13 of the Trademark Act. The above prior registration application's rejection ruling as to the above prior registration application is not finalized until the original adjudication was rendered. The validity of the earlier application is maintained. The theory of the lawsuit is dismissed as it is erroneous for the original adjudication based on the circumstances after the original adjudication in this case.

In addition, according to the original decision, the court below held that, in comparison with the cited trademark No. 2170 (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark 3), the original trademark is identical to the original trademark, and the cited trademark (3) is a trademark which combines the musical figure and the English characters, and its cited trademark is marked with the English characters "Lacoste" inside the malicious figure and its diagrams, and both trademarks are different in terms of their appearance and name, but in terms of the concept of the original trademark, the "Croste" in the English characters is generally different in terms of their appearance and name, and it is reasonable to recognize that the trademark is identical to the original trademark's appearance and appearance of the designated goods in the same manner as the original trademark's appearance and appearance of the designated goods are not identical to those of the original trademark's crose, and thus, it is not reasonable to recognize that the original trademark is identical to the original trademark's appearance and appearance of the designated goods in the same manner as the latter's goods are not identical to those of the latter.

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.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)