(a) Whether it is possible to determine the similarity of trademarks by extracting only a part of the trademark composition part;

(b) Whether the term "CHNLOCK" is similar to the term "CHNL" in a non-replacement, a well-known trademark;

C. Purport of Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act

A. Whether or not a trademark is similar is not permitted to extract only a part of the constituent parts of the trademark and to determine only that part compared with the trademark of another person. In principle, the trademark should be determined by observing the trademark as a whole and comparing and reviewing its external name and concept. However, if the name, concept is identical or similar to that of another trademark only in special cases where the concept exists from one trademark, both trademarks can be interpreted as similar.

B. The name of CHNLL and CHNL, a wellknown trademark, cannot be seen as identical to the cited trademark. Furthermore, since the term CHNNNNNALK is an indivisible trademark as a whole, the term CHNNNNNL and LOCK cannot be separated from the component of the main trademark, and it cannot be determined that the part CHNNNL, a part of which is a part of the main trademark, constitutes a similar trademark compared to the cited trademark.

C. Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act provides that the composition data of the trademark itself is the case where it is not possible to register a trademark that misleads consumers or might mislead consumers as being of a quality different from that of the goods in relation to the designated goods.

(a)Article 9(1)6 and 9(1)9(c) of the Trademark Act; Article 9(1)11 of the Trademark Act;

Channel Rocop Patent Attorney Kang-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 572 decided July 26, 1986

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The trademark is used to prevent mistake and confusion in the source of goods by distinguishing one's own goods. The function of the trademark is to display the whole composed of the trademark in entirety. In light of the function of the trademark, it is not allowed to extract only a part of the constituent part of the trademark and determine the similarity of the trademark compared with the trademark of another person. In principle, the similarity of the trademark shall be determined by comparing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark with the observation of the trademark as a whole.

However, it is common to say that the trademark's actual function as a trademark is performed through the transaction process, and in case where the parties to the transaction observe the trademark in preparation for each other in the process, the movement of the trademark is determined by psychological images that the party to the transaction memorys differently from the time and place. In this case, if each constituent part of the trademark is not an indivisible combination so that it is impossible to separately observe it, only part of it can be simply called and conceptualized, so there may be two or more names and concepts from one trademark. Thus, only in such special cases, if the name, concept is identical or similar to that of another trademark, both trademarks can be interpreted as similar.

2. The original adjudication on the grounds that the part "LOCK" in the main trademark "CHNNNALOK is separate from the part in relation to the designated goods and there is no distinguishability as it falls under the ordinary name in relation to the designated goods. The part "CHNNNL" other than the part "CHNNNNL" consists of the same as "N" in comparison with "CHNL" which is a well-known trademark, so it is reasonable to reject the application for trademark registration on the grounds that the similarity is recognized. However, the trademark "CHNNNNNNNL and CHELK" cannot be seen as the same, and it is difficult to see that the word "CHNNNNNNNALK" is divided into two parts, and it is a trademark that can be called or conceptualized.

The court below's decision that only CHNNL, a part of the original trademark, is separate from the parts of the original trademark, and judged that the trademark constitutes a similar trademark by comparing it with the cited trademark is reasonable, and there is a ground for appeal stating this point.

3. The court below also ruled that the original trademark should be rejected under Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act. However, Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act provides that the composition data itself of the trademark itself has a quality different from that of the goods in relation to the designated goods, and it is not possible to register the trademark that is likely to mislead or mislead consumers as being in a way of having a quality different from that of the goods. The court below did not find any fact that the composition data itself of the original trademark itself is likely to mislead or mislead consumers as to the designated goods. Thus, the decision of the court below is not only erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 9 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act, but also constitutes a inconsistent reasoning. Although it was not pointed out as the ground of appeal, it also pointed out that there is the same issue as the examination after the remand.

4. Therefore, the original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)