Whether or not this trademark "Samu" and the cited trademark "samson's item 1.00 m." are similar

In contrast to the three aspects of the name, appearance, and concept, the "saamson", which is the trademark of this case, and the "saamson," which is crossed under the shape of half-month shapes, the cited trademark of this case, is not found to have any similarity to the extent that it causes mistake or confusion, and the " n.e., f., m." of the "saamson's n.m." is not a sufficient function to distinguish the "saamson's l.m." from the "saamu", so the above two trademarks are not similar.

Articles 9 and 46 of the Trademark Act

Samdo Art Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Appellants

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 188 delivered on November 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The ground of appeal by the claimant is examined as follows. (In the case of the supplemental appellate brief by an agent or agent Kim Young-young, to the extent that it supplements the above ground of appeal)

Whether or not a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined on the basis of whether or not two trademarks used in the same or similar goods are likely to be mistaken or confused with the source of goods in trade by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in this case, and on the basis of whether or not the original decision is likely to mislead or confuse the source of goods in trade, the trademark in this case and the "Samson" under the name, appearance, and appearance of the cited trademark in this case for reasons as stated in its holding, and on the ground that the "Samson" under the cited trademark in this case is not found to have any similarity to the extent that it causes misconception or confusion, and the "Samson l.m." in the terms of "Samson l.m." does not have any sufficient function to distinguish the two trademarks from Samson l.m. with other trademarks, so it shall be rejected that there is no ground to view that the above trademark in this case is similar to Sam.m. 1, which is justified in accordance with the records.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)