[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether the trademark "ISOUE" and the trademark "ISOU" are similar (affirmative)

[1] Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by observing two trademarks used for the same kind of product in terms of their appearance, name, and concept in objective, overall, and different aspects in terms of their appearance, name, and concept, and at any time, whether there is a possibility of misunderstanding or confusion as to the origin of goods in trade. However, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is clearly possible to avoid confusion of the origin as a whole, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark, and if there is a difference between parts, the name or concept is similar, and if it is easy for ordinary consumers to confuse or confuse it, it shall be deemed a similar trademark.

[2] In preparation for the cited trademark "ISUE" and the cited trademark "ISU" which was filed and registered in the earlier application, both trademarks are not similar in terms of appearance, and they are also different from each other in terms of concept, but the cited trademark can be referred to as "sect," " Schlage," "Jju" or "juju", etc. However, if the cited trademark is referred to as "ASUE" or "Bju", it is similar to the applied trademark, so if both trademarks are used in the same or similar goods, it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of goods among ordinary consumers.

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1077 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2648), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2272) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Hu233 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2728), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu100 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2675), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu343 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2300)

Applicant (Patent Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the applicant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na1381 dated September 27, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined in terms of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, and whether there is a concern for misconceptions or confusions as to the source of goods in trade at any time by observing in an objective, overall, and different aspects in terms of their appearance, name, and concept. However, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is clearly possible to avoid confusion as to the source as a whole, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark. On the contrary, even if there are different parts in different names, names, and concepts, it shall be deemed as a similar trademark if ordinary consumers are misled or confused easily (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu64 delivered on May 26, 1995).

In comparison with the cited trademark "ISU" (registration number omitted) registered prior to and registered with the "ISUE" in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "USUE"), both trademarks are difficult to be deemed similar to the appearance of the trademark, and their concepts are different from each other. However, in their names, the cited trademark can be referred to as "renex", "ice oil", "C", "z oil", or "juice", and if the cited trademark is referred to as "C" or "Tju", it is similar to the cited trademark, so if both trademarks are used for the same or similar goods, it is likely to cause mistake and confusion as to the origin of the goods among ordinary consumers. Thus, the cited trademark cannot be registered pursuant to Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

In this regard, the decision of the court below which judged that both trademarks are similar to those of the two trademarks as a whole is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks or incomplete deliberation, etc. as discussed above. The precedents of party members cited in the arguments are inappropriate to invoke this case as they differ in this case. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)