(a) whether the trademark "ST. MICHAEL" and "MICHAES" are similar; (b) the criteria for determining whether a trademark is eligible for registration;

A. The original trademark “ST. MICHEL” and the cited trademark “MICHES PETS” (registration No. 125293) are classified into two parts in appearance, and both of them are not a series of indivisibles to the extent that they can be separated and observed separately, and the original trademark is referred to as “Mach” and the cited trademark may be referred to as “Mach”, and the cited trademark may be referred to as “Mach”, and the cited trademark is merely a difference in that there is no “S” indicating the ownership level in this case, and both trademarks are similar to the designated goods, and both trademarks are likely to mislead and confuse the origin of goods if both trademarks exist.

B. Whether a trademark is eligible for registration should be determined individually according to each trademark in relation to the designated goods, and thus, the registration of the trademark is not necessarily required to be permitted in the case of the principal trademark on the ground that an application for registration of a trademark with other goods as designated goods was accepted and registered.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Hu814 delivered on October 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2994) 94Hu1466 delivered on December 26, 1994 (Gong195Ha, 495) 95Hu446 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2809) 94Hu1701 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 1617), 95Hu26,33 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2269)

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee] Masnx Hasn L. L.C. Patent Attorney Baon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 195 April 28, 1995 94 Appellant404

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as "ST. MICEL") and the trademark of cited cited trademark "MICHAL PES" (registration No. 125293) are not all divided into two parts in appearance, but all are not divided into two parts, and the trademark of this case is not divided into a series of different parts so that it can be separated and observed separately, and the trademark of this case can be referred to as "mast", and the cited trademark can be referred to as "mast", and the cited trademark can be referred to as "mast", and there is no difference in this case, and both trademarks are similar to the designated goods, and if both trademarks exist, such as books, magazines, etc. of category 52, and magazines, and thus, if they exist, it is likely to mislead general consumers as to the origin of goods and cause confusion as to the origin of goods. Thus, the decision of the court below is justified by applying the provision of Article 7 (1)7) of the Trademark Act.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

We cannot accept the arguments asserted under the premise that both trademarks are not separately observed.

On the other hand, the existence of the eligibility for registration of a trademark should be determined separately in accordance with each trademark in relation to the designated goods. Thus, the application for trademark registration with other goods as designated goods such as family theory is accepted and registered, and the registration in this case does not necessarily require permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Hu26, 33, May 23, 1995). There is no reason for all arguments.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)