[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether the trademark "SPMAX" is similar to the trademark "MAS"

[1] In determining similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, in an objective, overall, and separately, whether there is a risk of misconception or confusion as to the origin of the goods.

[2] The original trademark "SPTRS" and the cited trademark "SMAX" combines the English text "SPOT" with the English text "SPOX" and the cited trademark is composed of two parts, and the cited trademark consists of multiple characters "S" with the original part "S" and "S" with the last end. However, although the English text "SPTRT" is the same, the original part "S" with the word "S" is different from its appearance in terms of its composition and arrangement. It is impossible to compare each other with each other because the concept has no special meaning. The cited trademark in the name "scambling sports" is ordinarily called "scambling", although the original trademark is similar to "scambling" and "scambling" and "scambling" with "scambling" with "scambling" with "scambling" with "scambling" with "scambling", it is difficult to see that the part "scambling" with "scambling" with the general consumers' thickness.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1077 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2648) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu784 delivered on October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2992) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2272)

Masa Fashion Group S.A.L. (Patent Attorney Park Hon-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 94Na204 dated June 26, 1995

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, with respect to the similarity of the original trademark "SPX" and the prior registered trademark (registration number omitted), the original trademark and the cited trademark "MAGSS" (hereinafter the cited trademark) can be deemed to have different appearances due to differences in the composition and arrangement of letters, etc. However, in the name of the original trademark, the original trademark is referred to as "sports connection" and the quoted trademark is referred to as "scam" and the cited trademark is referred to as "scam sports" and the end of the original trademark "scam" is not rarely visible, considering the fact that the name of both trademarks is referred to as "sports" and "scams" are referred to as "sports", it cannot be denied that the overall sense is similar.

However, in determining similarity of trademarks, the trademark should be determined on the basis of whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of the trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995). According to the records, both trademarks are combined with the English LMAT that consists of the English LMAX “SPG” and the cited trademark consists of multiple characters with “S” attached to the front part and combined with “S”. However, although the English LMAT is identical to the front part, it is impossible to see that the overall appearance of the trademark is different from that of the designated goods in terms of terms such as differences in the composition and arrangement, and it is not possible to see that there is a difference in the appearance of the trademark as a whole, and in terms of terms, it is not possible to see that the two trademarks are similar in terms of the word “scambling sports” and the word “scambling and similar parts” in terms of “scambling.”

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the different purport is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)