Whether the registered trademark “(s) and the cited trademark “(s)” are similar (affirmative)

In combination of figures and letters, the cited trademark consisting of "the trademark consisting of the registered trademark and the Korean language "the same as the above" is not more than the whole appearance for its appearance, and in light of the common examples called simply with the distinctive parts in the general trade world respecting simple speed and speed, the cited trademark shall be deemed to be "Donga", and the cited trademark shall be deemed to be "Donga", and in such a case, the cited trademark shall be deemed to be similar in both cases, with the exception of the addition of "new", and the concept of "new" in the cited trademark shall be similar in that i.e., the same Asia, except for the addition of "new". Therefore, if both trademarks are used for designated goods, there is a concern of misconception and confusion as to the origin of the goods, and both trademarks shall be deemed to be a similar trademark.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Hu15 Decided September 22, 1987 (Gong1987, 1645) 90Hu359 Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 639), Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1253 Decided March 8, 1991 (Dong)

Edives exchange

Patent Attorney Hong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office 219 decided Jun. 23, 1990

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

As to the ground of appeal by claimant

According to the reasoning of the original decision, when examining the similarity between the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case, the court below held that the trademark of this case is composed of diagrams and letters combined with the cited trademark of this case, and the cited trademark is composed of Korean characters with the indication "Saoon Saon Saon Saon Saon Saon Sa on Saon Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on Sa on the composition of the cited trademark of this case, although the part "" in the composition of the cited trademark of this case is similar to those of the cited trademark of this case, the trademark of this case is limited to parts of both trademarks, and there is no difference between the two trademarks and the cited trademark of this case, and it is difficult to conclude that the figure or the cited trademark of this case is not distinctive.

However, in determining the similarity of a trademark, the similarity of a trademark shall be determined depending on whether the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods in light of the common sense of the transaction of goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark as a whole and separately. Even in different parts among trademarks, if the phrase constituting the essential part is similar and it is easy to confuse with the name or concept, it shall be deemed as a similar trademark. In this case, the registered trademark and the quoted trademark shall be deemed as a whole in the appearance, and in the case of the trademark, the cited trademark shall be deemed as a trademark in the light of the common practice that respects the simple and swiftness of the trademark, and in the case of the name, the quoted trademark shall be deemed as a "Dong", and in the case of the cited trademark, it shall be similar to both trademarks, and the meaning of the cited trademark refers to a trademark "new", i.e., the same meaning, the trademark refers to the same, i., the other trademark, and thus, it shall be deemed as similar.

Therefore, the original decision that held that both trademarks are not similar shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)