The case holding that the trademark "MaUSSO" is similar to the cited trademark "the horns of rhinoceros" and "the horns of rhinoceros" and "the horns of rhinoceros" and it is likely to deceive consumers.

The case holding that if the trademark composed of "MUSSO" combined with the horns of rhinoceros and English letters is recognized to be "the horns of rhinoceros" with the figure, which is one of its essential parts, it is identical with the cited trademark 1 composed of "the horns of rhinoceros" and the cited trademark 2, 3, and the name and concept of each word "the horns of rhinoceros" and the cited trademark 2, 3, and 3, and it is similar to each other, and the quoted trademark is known to the extent that it can be recognized as a trademark of a specific person at the time of the decision of the registration of the trademark, it is likely that the cited trademark might deceive consumers.

Articles 7(1)7 and 11, and 71(1)1 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 5355 of Aug. 22, 1997)

Lanan Fiber Textiles Industry (Patent Attorney Song Jae-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo1065 delivered on April 1, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) composed of the two identical or similar parts of the cited trademark No. 1 (registration No. 2 omitted) and the cited trademark No. 2 and 3 (registration No. 3 and No. 4 omitted) should be invalidated by the cited trademark No. 1 (registration No. 2 omitted) composed of two identical or similar parts of the horns, since it is difficult to view that the registered trademark of this case does not create any special concept due to the combination of the two parts and letters, and it is difficult to view that there is an integral combination of these parts to the extent that it would be natural, separate and observe the registered trademark No. 7, and it is recognized that the registered trademark of this case is an essential part of the figure and letters, and that the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case No. 97, which is identical or similar to the trademark of this case, if it is recognized that the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case No. 17.

2. In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, misunderstanding of facts, or lack of reasoning.

The grounds of appeal are that the registered trademark of this case is named as "unexplosion" and it cannot be called as "copactation with the figure portion." However, since the figure portion of the registered trademark of this case concerns the horns of rhinoceros which can be easily identified by ordinary consumers or traders, it cannot be ruled out that the registered trademark of this case is one of the main parts, and it is not possible to be perceived and protected as "copact" because the name or concept is clear and simple. Even if there are many cases where the registered trademark of this case is called as "unexplosion" by the letter, it is the word "coption" at the end of our country, so long as the specific concept of "coption" is the same as that of the registered trademark of this case, it shall be deemed that the trademark of this case is similar to the cited trademark of this case.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. 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 Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)