(a) If one trademark considers two or more titles, concepts, and ideas on one trademark, and one of them is similar to that of another trademark (affirmative);

B. Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark (affirmative)

A. The trademark is not an indivisible combination to the extent that the observation by separating each constituent part is deemed natural in the trade, but is not an integral combination to the extent that it is not natural in the trade, the part of the constituent part can be briefly named, conceptualized, and conceptualized, and at least two titles and concepts may arise from one trademark. As such, if one trademark can think of two or more names and concepts, one of them is similar to that of another trademark, the two trademarks are ultimately similar.

B. The cited trademark consisting of the two English words "POWER" and "NET" connected with the two English words "NET" and the English words "NET" and the cited trademark consisting of two pages crossing each other, but the appearance differs from each other, and the separate observation of each constituent part of the trademark is not a combination of a series of differences so far as it is so far as the separate observation of each constituent part in the trade can be conducted in the form of "frequency" or "NE", and the cited trademark is likely to be called, conceptualized, and conceptualized as "NE" and the cited trademark is likely to cause misconceptions and confusions of the source of the goods if the two designated goods are named, conceptualized, and conceptualized as "NE" as "NE". Therefore, the applied trademark is 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 89Hu1394 decided May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1261), 89Hu1561 decided May 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1371) and 90Hu1734 decided March 27, 1991 (Gong191, 1294)

Patent Attorney Choyang-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 89Hun-won708 dated September 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

As to the ground of appeal by the applicant's attorney

A trademark is not necessarily a name or concept, but is not a combination with each constituent part to the extent that it is natural in the transaction. It can be briefly named, concept, and two or more titles or concepts can arise from one trademark. If two or more titles or concepts can be thought from one trademark, if one of them is similar to that of another trademark, then the two trademarks are similar (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Hu1394 delivered on May 8, 1990, 90Hu1741 delivered on March 27, 191). According to the records, since the two trademarks can be seen as being identical to those of the two trademarks "" and the two trademarks "NE" are identical to those of the two trademarks, and thus, they can be seen as being identical to those of the two trademarks "" and thus, the two trademarks can be seen as being identical to those of the two trademarks so that they may not be confused with those of the two trademarks "", and the two trademarks can be seen as being identical to the two trademarks.

In the same purport, the original decision has maintained the original decision rejecting an application for the registration of the original trademark under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) with the same purport, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, lack of reasons, and incomplete hearing as pointed out therein. The argument is without merit.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)