Whether the registered trademark consisting of “” and “” are similar (affirmative)

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2026 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1766), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu333 delivered on February 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 702), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu3050 Delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 848), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu1096 Delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1311)

Age P Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Choi Ho-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo1677 Decided June 10, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a concern that ordinary consumers or traders may mislead or confuse the source of goods in trade by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods objectively, collectively, in a separate manner, and based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. Even if one of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion of the source clearly as a whole, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark, but if it is easy for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse because the name or concept is similar to each other, it shall be deemed a similar trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Hu2026, May 22, 1998; 9Hu1096, Apr. 25, 200).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision is justified in holding that the registered trademark of this case composed of " "" and " "" (registration No. 481434) are different from the appearance of each other, and the concept is not identical, but in the name, the trademark of this case is referred to as "the first" by the Korean part, and the first registered trademark can be referred to as "the second", and the second registered trademark only differs from the second "the second "the second "the second", and the second "the second "the second" is the same as "the second", and therefore, both trademarks are similar to the second "the second "the second", and therefore, both trademarks are deemed to be a similar trademark that may cause misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods as a whole, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks.

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.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)