The similarity between trademark "Christ & Cre" and "CHRITINA" can be found as similar to trademark "Christ and Carel"

In comparison with the cited trademark "Christ & Cre" and the cited trademark applied earlier, the appearance and concept of the two trademarks are similar to those of "Christ and the two words constituting the two trademarks in appearance, and they are not capable of forming a new concept by combining them, so each part cannot be viewed as an indivisible combination to the extent that it is deemed natural in the trade, and each part can not be viewed as being separated and observed, and in accordance with the tendency of ordinary consumers who intend to memory by a simple name or concept, it is easy to name only the "Christ" of the preceding part, and in that case, the name "Christ" and "Critha" which are similar to "Chritha" and "Critha" which are similar to the cited trademark, which would cause confusion or confusion with the general consumers or traders as to the origin of goods.

Article 8 (1) of the Trademark Act

A.M.K.D. Entertainment (Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office 1546 decided Feb. 28, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A trademark, at all times, is not a name or concept by the name or shape of the entire constituent part, but a separate observation of each constituent part may be simplely made by only a part of the constituent part unless it is inseparably indivisible to the extent natural if it is not natural. When it is possible to think at least two names or concepts from one trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark, the two trademarks are similar.

According to the record, in comparison with the cited trademark (registration number omitted) applied on July 3, 1991 and applied on June 27, 1992 by the applicant on the record, the trademark at issue is called "Christ & Carel" and the cited trademark (registration number omitted) applied on June 27, 1992. The appearance and concept of the two trademarks are: (a) the two trademarks are distinguishable externally from the two words constituting them; (b) the trademark at issue does not constitute a combination of two trademarks; and (c) the trademark at issue does not constitute a confusion as to the source of goods or consumers if they are combined and observe each part separately; and (d) the trademark at issue is referred to as a "Christst" of the preceding part, and if they are used in the same or similar designated goods, the trademark at issue may cause confusion as to the source of goods or cause confusion as to the general consumers.

In this regard, the court below's conclusion that the two trademarks are similar to those of the two trademarks as a whole is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the lack of reasons, and the similarity of trademarks, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and the precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit are inappropriate in this case, unlike the case. There is no reason to argue

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)