[1] Method of determining similarity of trademarks

[2] The case reversing the original judgment on the ground that the applied trademark is not similar to the cited trademark

[1] Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods by observing two trademarks objectively, comprehensively, and externally in terms of appearance, name, and concept, and thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if a trademark as a whole can clearly avoid misconception or confusion as to the origin, the two trademarks shall not be deemed similar.

[2] The volume of the applied trademark “dol + SAINT-SENS” and the cited trademark “SENSE”, although they are not similar

c) 20

The case reversing the original decision that deemed a trademark similar.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu931 decided Feb. 28, 1997 (Gong1996Sang, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu931 decided Feb. 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 942), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu801 decided Mar. 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1115), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu163 decided Mar. 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1240), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu258 decided Jun. 24, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 197Sang, 197Sang, 197Sang, 197Hu19497 decided Apr. 197, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 2178) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 196Hu19794 decided Dec. 197, 1997

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 96Na417 dated March 7, 1997

The original decision is reversed. The case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, in preparation for the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") and the registered trademark (registration number omitted) of another person by earlier application (hereinafter referred to as the "a cited trademark"), the court below affirmed the decision that the trademark of this case is identical or similar to the trademark of this case referred to as "license" and the trademark of this case which combines "SAINT" and "SAENS" into "in-depth (open)" and the trademark or each constituent part composed of two parts cannot be deemed as being indivisiblely indivisible to the extent that natural is not naturally impossible if the trademark of this case is separately observed by the two parts. Thus, in light of the tendency of the trade society to memory the trademark by a brief name, it may be called "SAINT" or "SAENS" among these parts, the trademark of this case and its title are identical or similar to the trademark of this case, and therefore, if the trademark is identical or similar to the trademark of this case, the trademark of this case may cause confusion to general consumers pursuant to the trademark law.

2. Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods by observing two trademarks objectively, comprehensively, and objectively in terms of appearance, name, and concept in terms of appearance, name, and concept. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if a trademark as a whole can allow consumers to clearly avoid misconception or confusion as to the origin, the two trademarks cannot be deemed similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu1494, Mar. 22, 1996; 96Hu801, Mar. 14, 1997).

기록에 의하여 살펴보면, 본원상표는 상단부의 도형 부분과 하단부의 문자 부분이 결합된 상표로서 이를 분리관찰하면 거래상 자연스럽지 못하다고 여겨질 정도로 불가분적으로 결합되어 있다고 할 수는 없으므로 도형 부분과 문자 부분으로 분리관찰될 수 있다 할 것이나, 문자 부분인 'SAINT-SAENS'는 세계적으로 유명한 근대 프랑스의 작곡가인 '생상스(Charles Camille Saint-Saёns)'의 성(성)에 해당하는 표장이므로 프랑스어에 소양이 있는 수요자라면 그것이 '생상스'의 프랑스어 표기임을 쉽사리 알 수 있어 이를 일체적으로 호칭·관념하게 될 것이고, 위 문자 부분이 '생상스'를 지칭하는 것인지를 모르는 수요자라고 하더라도 위 문자 부분의 구성상 이를 특별한 의미가 없는 후반부의 'SAENS'만에 의하여 호칭·관념하리라고 단정하기는 어려워 본원상표가 인용상표와 칭호에 있어서도 유사하다고 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 가사 본원상표가 문자 부분 중 'SAENS' 부분만에 의하여 '샌스'나 '센스'로 호칭될 수 있어 인용상표와 그 칭호에 있어 유사하게 되는 경우가 있다고 하여도 양 상표는 전체적인 외관과 관념에 있어서 현저하게 차이가 있으므로 양 상표를 동일·유사한 지정상품에 다 함께 사용한다고 하더라도 일반 수요자로 하여금 상품출처에 관하여 오인·혼동을 일으키게 할 염려는 없다고 보아야 할 것이다 .

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on determining similarity of trademarks and thereby affecting the conclusion of the decision. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office corresponding to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)