A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

B. Whether the trademark is similar to the other trademark

A. Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined on the basis of the objective, overall, and dual observation of the external appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods, and at any time, on the basis of whether there is concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods among the goods. Even if there are different parts among the trademarks, it is similar to the part constituting the essential part to make it easier for them to be confused in the overall observation.

B. This original trademark is a combination of diagrams and letters composed of diagrams and English, and the quoted trademark is a character trademark with two parallels of the English and bottom of the upper group, and one is different in its appearance. With the concept, "newco" and "newcom" are merely merely merely a simple word and do not constitute an object of comparison. The cited trademark's Korean part can be indicated as "necome" if it is marked in English, and if it is marked so, the English part of the original trademark and the cited trademark is different in terms of its concept, but both trademarks are similar in terms of their names to "new" and "newcom" and "newcom" as a whole, and thus, it is not similar in terms of the meaning of "newcom" and "newcom."

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Hu233 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2728) 92Hu100 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2675) 93Hu343 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2300), or Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1612 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1704) 94Hu425 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1837)

New Mann only, Patent Attorney Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Na730 dated April 30, 1994

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

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

Whether or not a trademark is similar to one another shall be determined by whether or not there is a possibility that ordinary consumers or traders in trade may confuse the origin of the goods among the goods, by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods. Even if there are different parts among the trademarks, it is similar to the parts constituting the essential part, which would be easily confused with others in the overall observation.

According to the records, the trademark "(Registration No. 1 omitted)" (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark) is similar to the original trademark and the cited trademark "(Registration No. 1 omitted)" (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark). The cited trademark is a combination of figures and letters composed of figures and English, and the cited trademark is a character trademark with two parallels in the English and bottom of the upper group, and its appearance differs from one another. In concept, "newco" and "necom", a part of the cited trademark, which is the part of the original trademark and the cited trademark, are merely a simple word and are not subject to comparison. The cited trademark's Korean part of the cited trademark is identical to "necome" if it is marked in English, and thus, it is extremely similar to the trademark's original trademark and the cited trademark's trademark's trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's original trademark's and its original trademark's original trademark's bottom.

The judgment of the court below to this purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, such as the theory of lawsuit. The judgment of the party members pointing out the theory of lawsuit is related to the case that differs from this case, and thus it is not appropriate to invoke this case. There is no reason to argue.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)