[1] Criteria for determining similarity of combined trademarks

[2] Whether the trademark is similar to the trademark's "probed figure" £« production on the first day and on the first day (affirmative)

[1] Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether there is concern for mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks in an objective, overall, and separately, and based on a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. The combined trademark combining each constituent element of letters, letters, or figures is not necessarily named and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, but can be briefly named, conceptualized, and conceptualized by only part of the constituent part unless it is an indivisible combination with each constituent part to the extent that it is deemed natural if the separate observation of the respective constituent part is made, and if two or more names or concepts can be thought from one trademark, and if it is deemed that one of them is identical or similar to another's trademark, the two trademarks are similar.

[2] The applied trademark is a combination trademark consisting of the word "production on a daily basis" written at the bottom of the exclusive repair figure and the word "production on a daily basis" written at the bottom. The combination of the above figure and the word are not likely to create a new concept, but it is difficult to view that the combination of the above figure and the word does not lead to a combination of new ideas to the extent that it is natural and unrecepted by separate observation, so it can be seen that the part of the figure and the word can be separated and observed to ordinary consumers. In addition, the "production on a safe basis" in the part of the letter is a general term used commonly in relation to the designated goods, and there is no distinctive character of the other goods. Therefore, the essential part of the applied trademark is the part of the trademark, and if the trademark is separately observed by the "date", it is identical with the cited trademark, so if the trademark is used on the designated goods identical or similar to both trademarks, it may cause misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods, so the trademark is similar.

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 53), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu795 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1108), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2412 delivered on March 12, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 672 delivered on April 13, 1999), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu829 delivered on April 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1049Sang), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu9399 delivered on March 23, 197 (Gong199Sang, 1049) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2931979 delivered on March 29319, 19797

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 98Heo5398 delivered on August 21, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is identical to the original trademark of this case 7, which is identical to the original trademark of this case 5, because it takes a day and takes 100 square meters within the length of original repair 7, and the trademark of this case is identical to the original trademark of this case 7, which is similar to the original trademark of this case 5, and the original trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case") is similar to the original trademark of this case 7, which is identical with the original trademark of this case excluding the original trademark of this case 5, which is similar to the original trademark of this case 5, since it is clearly different from the original trademark of this case from the original trademark of this case 7, which is identical with the original trademark of this case excluding the original trademark of this case 'the original trademark of this case 'the original trademark of this case 'the original trademark of this case 'the original trademark of this case '.', which is similar to the trademark of this case '.

However, the similarity of trademarks should be determined by whether there is a concern for mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks objectively, comprehensively, and separately, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. The combination trademark consisting of each constituent element of letters, letters, or figures is not necessarily a name or concept by the entire constituent part, but a combination of each constituent element is not an integral combination to a degree that it is deemed natural if the separate observation of each constituent part is made, then only a part of the constituent part can be called, concept. In addition, if two or more names or concepts can be considered from one trademark, and if it is deemed that one of them is identical or similar to another's trademark, the two trademarks are similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Hu2742, Sept. 25, 1992; 9Hu27495, Apr. 195, 195).

According to the records, both trademarks are combined trademarks consisting of the two trademarks consisting of the two trademarks consisting of the figure and the word "one-day and safe production" on the bottom of the trademark. The above figure and the word are not combined with new concepts, but it is difficult to view that the above figure and the word are combined to the extent that it is natural and unrecognizably, if they are observed separately, it can be viewed that the above figure and the word are combined with the original part. Among the letter parts, the " safe production" has no distinctive character as a general term used commonly in relation to the designated goods. Thus, the essential part of the original trademark is "the figure and the word," so if the original trademark is separately observed, it is identical with the cited trademark "the date," and if both trademarks are used on the designated goods identical or similar to each other, it may cause general consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of goods. Therefore, it is similar to the quantity of the trademark.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to determining the similarity of trademarks, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and by pointing this out, the appeal is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)