[1] Standard for determining whether a trademark is similar, and standard for determining whether a trademark is similar in a figure trademark / Method of determining whether a trademark is similar

[2] In a case where the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rejected the decision of rejection on the ground that documents, bags, etc. are similar to the registered trademark " " " "" and the registered trademark " " " " " " which are the designated goods" and the designated goods are similar to the registered trademark " " " " which are the registered trademark " and the designated goods," the case holding that the two marks are similar since they are likely to cause misconception and confusion as to the source if they are used in the same or similar goods because the dominant increase in appearance is similar to the identical or similar goods

[1] Whether a trademark is similar should be determined depending on whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion about the source of goods by objectively, comprehensively and objectively observing the trademark in terms of its appearance, name, and concept in terms of trade. In particular, two trademarks should be deemed similar if there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the source of goods if two trademarks are used together with identical or similar goods because the dominant impression of appearance is identical or similar, and if they are used together with identical or similar goods, there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the source of goods to ordinary consumers. In addition, the determination of similarity of trademarks should be made from the perspective of whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the source of goods by ordinary consumers who use two trademarks differently from the two trademarks themselves, rather than from the two trademarks themselves. Where two trademarks are likely to cause misconception or confusion as to the source of goods, the two trademarks should be deemed similar.

[2] 특허청 심사관이 가방 등을 지정상품으로 하는 갑 주식회사의 출원상표 “ ”에 대하여 서류가방 등을 지정상품으로 하는 선등록상표 “ ”와 표장 및 지정상품이 유사하다는 등의 이유로 거절결정을 하자, 갑 회사가 특허심판원에 불복심판을 청구하였으나 특허심판원이 기각하는 심결을 한 사안에서, 일반 수요자의 직관적 인식을 기준으로 두 상표의 외관을 이격적으로 관찰하면, 두 표장은 모두 검은색 도형 내부에 옆으로 누운 아치형의 도형 2개가 상하로 배치되어 있는 점, 검은색 도형의 왼쪽 부분이 오른쪽 부분보다 2배 정도 두꺼운 점 등에서 공통되고, 알파벳 ‘B’를 이용하여 도안화한 것으로 보이는 점에서 모티브가 동일하여 전체적인 구성과 거기에서 주는 지배적 인상이 유사하며, 출원상표는 검은색 도형이 오각형이어서 상부가 뾰족한 형상을 이루는 반면 선등록상표는 검은색 도형이 사각형이어서 상부가 평평한 형상인 점 등에서 차이가 있으나 이는 이격적 관찰로는 쉽게 파악하기 어려운 정도의 차이에 불과하여, 두 표장은 외관이 주는 지배적인 인상이 유사하여 동일·유사한 상품에 다 같이 사용하는 경우 일반 수요자에게 출처에 관하여 오인·혼동을 일으킬 염려가 있으므로 서로 유사하다고 한 사례.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 and 12 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 and 12 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15512 Decided March 14, 2013 (Gong2013Sang, 692)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Seo-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2015Heo1874 decided July 17, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark is similar ought to be determined depending on whether there is a concern for mistake or confusion in trade by objectively, comprehensively and separately observing the compared trademark in terms of appearance, name, and concept in terms of the appearance of the trademark. In particular, in a figure trademark, if the dominant impression of the appearance is identical or similar to the identical or similar product and if it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods to ordinary consumers if the two trademarks are used together with the identical or similar product, the two trademarks should be deemed similar. In addition, the determination of similarity of trademarks should not be made from the perspective of whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods by ordinary consumers who stand two trademarks differently from the two trademarks themselves, but rather, from the perspective of whether the two trademarks are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods. Where two trademarks are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods by comprehensively taking into account the impression, memory, tobacco, etc. that the trademark gives to ordinary consumers by means of appearance, name, and concept, the two trademarks should be deemed similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201515Do152.

Patent of this case

The Prior Registered Trademark of this case

2. In light of the above legal principles, the trademark of this case (trademark registration number omitted) and document bags consisting of the right side as designated goods and the prior registered trademark of this case consisting of the following right side is similar to the prior registered trademark of this case.

A person shall be appointed.

If the appearance of two trademarks are observed differently based on the direct recognition of ordinary consumers, the two marks are jointly attached to the upper part, such as the fact that two shapes 2 in the upper part, the fact that two shapes 2 in the upper part, the fact that the left part of the color figure is cut two times more than the right part of the upper part, and the fact that it seems to have been devised by using the Alphabbb “B,” it is similar to the overall structure of Matib and the dominant impression that are identical to the Matib.

다만 이 사건 출원상표는 검은색 도형이 오각형이어서 상부가 뾰족한 형상을 이루는 반면 이 사건 선등록상표는 검은색 도형이 사각형이어서 상부가 평평한 형상인 점, 이 사건 출원상표는 검은색 도형 내부에 있는 2개의 아치형 도형의 크기 차이가 있음이 비교적 분명히 드러나는 반면 이 사건 선등록상표는 2개의 아치형 도형의 크기가 거의 같은 점 등에서 차이가 있으나, 이는 이격적 관찰로는 쉽게 파악하기 어려운 정도의 차이에 불과하다고 보인다.

As such, two marks are similar to the dominant increase in their appearance, and if they are used for the same or similar goods, they are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to their source to ordinary consumers. Thus, they are similar.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the applied trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark of this case are similar to each other on the grounds that the dominant appearance differs from each other. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on determining the similarity of trademarks, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)