The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether the similarity of a trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the product by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, differently and objectively, and based on whether ordinary consumers or traders experience the trademark in the transaction of the designated product is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the product.

Therefore, even if there is a similar part between the trademarks compared, if there is little possibility that the trademark alone may be separated or discounted, or if it is possible to clearly avoid confusion of sources when the overall observation is made, it cannot be deemed as a similar trademark.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Hu4193 Decided December 9, 2010, etc.). The lower court determined that the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 956406) composed of “Skinke, flake, cream, and bathtos” as designated goods and that the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 956406) consisting of “Romantic” alone is unlikely to be separated and recognizable as designated goods, and that “skincke, fladine, social forest, and bathtos,” etc. are unlikely to cause misconceptions or confusions between general consumers or traders as to the origin of goods, and thus, it cannot be deemed a similar trademark.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the essential part

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.