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

(b) whether the applied trademark “ODRGEB” and the cited trademark are similar;

TAP

A. The trademark does not necessarily mean a name by the name or shape of the entire constituent part, but can be conceptually conceptualized by only a part of the constituent part unless it is an indivisible combination to such an extent that it is considered natural unrecognizable if observed separately from each constituent part. If it is possible to think of two or more names or concepts from one trademark, if the concept of a name is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark.

(b) The applied trademark “ORGE TB” is a combination of “ORGE” and “TAB” and the two parts of the trademark are separate and observed respectively, and as such, it is not perceived that the trademark in question is in a non-natural nature to be separated and observed by the general consumers “ONGE” and “TAB” and if the applied trademark is simply called “TAB” to the general consumers, the similarity between the cited trademark and the cited trademark is recognized, and if the trademark in question is used in the same manner as the designated goods of the same kind, the confusion of the source of the goods may be caused to the general consumers.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1076 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992, 790) 92Hu1462 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 613) 93Hu688 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2790)

Levist LAS TWn (Attorneys Lee Jae-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na407 dated July 30, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A trademark is not necessarily named and conceptualized by the name or form of the entire constituent part, but is not necessarily called and conceptualized by the entire constituent part, and is not inseparably indivisible to such an extent that it is natural impossible to observe each constituent part separately. In addition, in a case where two or more names or concepts can be considered from one trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark, the two trademarks are similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Hu688, Sept. 14, 1993).

The court below held that the original trademark is a combination of "ODRGE" and "TAB" and the two parts are required respectively, and that the separate observation of the two parts is not a natural stimulsion, and if the original trademark is simply called a "TAB" to the general consumers, the similarity between the cited trademark and the cited trademark is recognized, and if the original trademark is used in the same manner as the designated goods of the same kind, it is likely to cause the misconception and confusion of the origin of the goods to the general consumers. Accordingly, the court below's determination that the original trademark's rejection of the registration of the original trademark by applying the provisions of Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is justified in light of relevant evidence and records, and the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no possibility of confusion with the original trademark's concept of "TB" in this case, and there is no possibility of confusion with the original trademark's concept of "TB" in this case, and there is no possibility of confusion with the original trademark's concept of "TB".

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)