(a)where it is possible to think of two or more names and concepts in a trademark, the criteria for determining similaritys with other trademarks;

(h) The term "party to consideration for a stock company" means whether the registered trademark and the "party to consideration for the sperm sheet" are similar to the cited trademark in which letters are written;

A. The trademark should be the subject of the U.S. ruling, however, that it is not always the subject of the U.S. ruling, but at all times, a trademark that does not recognize that the component part is not a name or concept by the entire name, but a separate observation of each constituent part is indivisible to such extent that it is not natural in the transaction. According to the time, the part among the constituent parts can be simply called, concept, and two or more titles or concepts can occur from one trademark. In this case, if one trademark can think of two or more names, concepts, and concepts from one trademark, if it is not similar to the name, concept, and concept of another's trademark, it is reasonable to interpret that two trademarks are similar in the end when the two names, concepts are recognized as similar to that of the other's trademark.

B. "Consideration Party" means the trademark consisting of a letter trademark and "the figure of a person with intention on the upper part of the shape "" and the cited trademark consisting of the shapes and letters, both of which, in Korean, are considered to be an essential part of the trademark that can lead the most attention from general buyers. Since all the goods marked on both trademarks are the same kind of fruit, etc., and thus the above two trademarks are similar in terms of name and concept.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu9 delivered on May 24, 1983

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Patent Attorney Kim Man-hee and Attorney Kang Jin-hee

Patent Attorney Cho Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision (Law No. 28 of June 28, 1983) No. 1981 and 28

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal by claimant's representative are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, in comparison with the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case, the court below understood the trademark of this case as the character trademark of the "Cryp" or the "Cyp" of the "Cyp" or the "Cyp" of the composition of this case as "Cyp" or "Cyp" or "Cyp" of the composition of this case, and judged that even if the shape of "Cyp" is common to both, the overall appearance of "Cyp" is higher, and even if the name and concept are well-known, the trademark of this case can be easily referred to as the "Cyp" or "Cyp" or "Cyp" of the composition of this case as the "Cypp" or the "Cyp" of the "Cyp" or the "Cyp" of the composition of this case, both of them are referred to as the "Cypinep" or the "Cyp" or the "Cyp" of the composition of this case.

However, the purport of Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act that provides that trademark " shall not be registered for goods identical with or similar to the registered trademark of an earlier application" is to prevent consumers from being misled or confused by using a trademark similar to the registered trademark of an earlier application, and to protect consumers' credit in the transaction of the earlier application. Thus, if a trademark is used for the designated goods of the earlier application or for similar goods, it shall be determined by whether there is any possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of the trademark. From this point of view, it shall not be said that the trademark should be the subject of determination of the whole composition, but it shall not be called "the trademark" as its name or concept, and it shall not be deemed that the trademark is identical to or similar to the registered trademark of another person at the time of the use of the trademark so that it can be seen that there is an integral concept that only one part of the trademark can be seen as identical or similar to the trademark at the time of the use of the trademark so long as it appears that it is natural.

Thus, as long as the name, concept, and concept of the trademark of this case have occurred in the cited trademark, and the name, concept, and concept of the trademark of this case are seen as "the consideration party", the two trademarks are similar to one another in terms of their names and concepts. Nevertheless, the original decision that held that the above two trademarks are not similar is deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, and therefore, the argument that points out this issue is reasonable.

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)