(a) If it is possible to think of two or more names, concepts in one trademark, whether the two trademarks are similar when one of them is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark;

B. Whether the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark (1) and the cited trademark (2)

(a) A trademark is not necessarily called or conceptualized by the name or pattern of the entire constituent part at all times, but is not necessarily called or conceptualized by the entire constituent part, and unless observing separately each constituent part is inseparably indivisible to the extent natural, if only a part of the constituent part can be conceptually named, conceptualized, and if it is possible to think two or more names or concepts from one trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another’s trademark.

B. In comparison with the applied trademark and the cited trademark (1) registered previously and the cited trademark (2), the trademark applied for registration and the cited trademark are not identical to the cited trademark. However, even if there is a difference between the cited trademark and the cited trademark, the trademark applied for registration and the cited trademark are not capable of deriving any concept by combining them with a series of indivisible words, and it is not deemed that the trademark applied for registration and the cited trademark are indivisiblely combined to such a degree that it is deemed natural in the transaction even if each part is separately observed, because the first word of the two words is indicated in the gate, and each part is separated from each other, and it cannot be deemed that the trademark applied for registration is an integrally combined to the extent that it is not natural in the transaction. In addition, according to the tendency of the ordinary consumers who want to memory the trademark by using a simple name or concept, the name is easily called “Runa” and, in that case, it is similar to the cited trademark.

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 561, Dec. 27, 1991) (Gong1992, 790) 91Hu1076 decided Dec. 24, 1992 (Gong1993,613)

Attorney Lee Ho-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 91Na2131 dated March 31, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant's attorney are examined.

Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the place of goods in trade at any time after objectively, overall, and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Hu1950, Apr. 13, 1990; 89Hu2212, May 25, 1990; 89Hu2212, Feb. 19, 199). In addition, unless at all times a trademark is called, concept, not by the name or pattern, but by the name or pattern of the entire constituent parts, and it can be conceptually called, concept, and when one trademark considers two or more names or concepts from one trademark, one of them may be identical with or similar to another's trademark, if it is deemed that the trademark is identical with or similar to the other's trademark; 200Hu2969, Feb. 29, 1992; 2009Hu196969.

According to the record, in comparison with the cited trademark (1) and the cited trademark (2) which was registered prior to October 28, 1991 after the applicant filed an application on August 18, 190 and rendered a ruling of refusal on October 28, 1991, the trademark at issue and the cited trademark at issue and the cited trademark at issue and the cited trademark at issue are identical to the trademark at issue and at issue, and the trademark at issue and the cited trademark at issue and at issue are not identical to the trademark at issue and at issue, and their appearance and concept are not identical to the trademark at issue and the cited trademark at issue and the trademark at issue and at issue, and each part is separated from the trademark at issue from the original trademark at issue and at issue from the original trademark at issue and at issue, the trademark at issue and at issue are identical to the trademark at issue and at issue, and even if the trademark at issue and at issue are identical to the trademark at issue and at issue, the trademark at issue are identical to the trademark at issue and the trademark at issue before it is identical to the trademark at issue and the trademark at issue.

Although the court below's conclusion that "Runa" in the front part of the original trademark is the credit or month of the month is identical to the cited trademark, it is legitimate to conclude that the cited trademark is identical to the cited trademark as a whole in the name, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks or incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)