A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

B. Whether the business table and CHEMASTS are similar

(a) Whenever a trademark is not always named and conceptualized by the name or pattern of the entire constituent part, but is not necessarily indivisible to the extent that it is natural if it is observed separately from each constituent part to the extent that it is not natural, the two trademarks are similar if, as a result, only a part of the constituent part can be conceptually named and conceptualized, and if it is possible to think of two or more titles or concepts from one trademark, one of them is deemed identical or similar to another’s trademark.

B. The patent applied for trademark is a series of words “Mas” and “Cuisine” and the combination of two words results in a new concept, which can be divided into “Master” and “Cuisine. Although the cited trademark is indicated in a series of ways, even though it is simply combined between “CHEF” and “MATSE” with each different meaning, it is not always understood as a whole, but can be separately observed with “CHEF” and “MATSER”. Thus, if both trademarks are separately recognized or abbreviated only by “MATS”, both trademarks are similar in terms of their names and concepts.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na1616 dated December 27, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below determined that the original trademark registration of the original trademark can be separated from or abbreviated into “Master” and “Cuisine” in light of the fact that the two words are continuously indicated in the main trademark “Master” and “Cuisine” and that the combination of two words does not lead to a new concept, and that the cited trademark “CHEFMASER” (registration No. 1 omitted) is a series of indications, but it is a simple combination of two words with “CHEF” and “MATSER” with different meanings, and can be separated into “CHEF” and “MATSER” respectively, so if both trademarks are perceived or abbreviated only by “MATSER”, the original trademark registration of the original trademark is similar to each other, and thus, the original trademark registration of the original trademark is denied.

In light of the records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. Furthermore, the precedents cited in the theory of lawsuit are different cases and are not appropriate for this case. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)