Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

Whether a trademark is similar or not is determined by the determination of whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion as to the release of a product when two trademarks used in the same or similar goods. Thus, even if one of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is clearly possible to avoid confusions as to the release of a product, it cannot be deemed a similar trademark.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Jeju Stock Company

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

511 of the judgment of the appellate court rendered in 79 years against the defendant's appeal of the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

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

The grounds of appeal by claimant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below states that the trademark at issue and the cited trademark are superior to the appearance of the trademark at issue, but it is reasonable for anyone to use the cited trademark as "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium" with "glusium and glussium" with the same name similar and concept, both trademarks are identical with each other, and therefore, the court below states that the refusal of the application for registration at issue is legitimate.

However, whether the trademark is similar or not is determined by the determination of whether it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the release of goods when two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods. Thus, even if one of the appearance, name or concept is similar, if it can clearly avoid confusion as to the release of goods, the trademark cannot be deemed as similar trademark. According to the records and original decision, the trademark is a combination of the two trademarks with the word "blurg" crossing the word "blurg" in the bottom of the figure, with the word "blurg," and the cited trademark is a combination of five glurgic shapes (profl) shapes within its original form, and the cited trademark is clearly superior to the appearance of the two trademarks, and thus, it cannot be seen as "the trademark is obviously similar to the above two trademarks" as a whole, and thus, it cannot be seen as "the expression "the expression "the above glurgical or superior opinion" as it appears to be similar to the word "the above glurgical or superior opinion".

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young