The case affirming the judgment below which held that even if the registered trademark " "" and "victim" are used together for the same or similar goods as designated goods, such trademarks are not similar to each other on the grounds that there is no possibility that ordinary consumers or traders may mislead or confuse the source, even if they are used together with the designated goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Korean Broadcasting System (Patent Attorney Kim Jin-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 201Heo9610 decided December 28, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of the designated goods in the transaction of the designated goods by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of the trademark, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark. Thus, even if there is a similar part between the compared trademarks, if there is little possibility of separate recognition or confusion between them, such part alone may not be deemed as a similar trademark (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Hu29, Jun. 8, 1982; 2005Hu2908, Aug. 25, 2006, etc.).

2. In light of the fact that the trademark of this case (application number omitted) composed of “the State water, skin, Sast, Sast, Sast,” etc. as designated goods and the trademark of this case (application number omitted) composed of “” is a relatively short character trademark composed of Korean four characters, and the term “Rod” in its composition is the integrated and limited word “ ...” or “ ....” in combination with the word emitted earlier, and the entire length is the same as “lod,” and the length of “the route in which the number is emitted” in the same form as “lod,” etc., the lower court determined that even if the trademark of this case is not identical or similar to the trademark of this case, the trademark of this case is not likely to be separated by “lod” as a whole, and thus, it is not likely that the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case.

The judgment below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Il-young (Presiding Justice)