The case holding that the applied trademark is not a similar trademark due to the difference between the cited trademark and the essential part or significant difference in appearance.

The case holding that if the applicant of the applied trademark is a German company, and the applicant of the applied trademark is a relatively easily German language word "children" among the applied trademark, the shape of the applied trademark is also a child, and if the applied trademark is related to the applicable trademark as designated goods, the shape of the applied trademark cannot be deemed as an essential part of the applied trademark because it has no distinctive character as the designated goods, and the essential part of the applied trademark cannot be deemed as an essential part of the applied trademark because it is a "eukal" because it is not different from the above cited trademark, its name or concept, and if it is compared with the cited trademark, it is difficult to see that the applied trademark is a trademark as a whole different from that of the applied trademark, and it is difficult to see that the part of the applied trademark is an euk's English name and its distinctive character as a whole, and it is difficult to see that it is a difference from the applied trademark as an euk's English name and its distinctive character as a whole.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1250 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2887), Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1254 delivered on January 28, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 833), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu511 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 344), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu234 delivered on June 13, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2036)

Heagle Pad Dok Spanis IM (Patent Attorney Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 96Na1558 dated May 31, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark of this case filed on January 10, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is a combination of figures and letters composed of children's shapes and figures, and the quoted trademark (registration No. 1 omitted) is a quoted trademark (registration No. 6, 1985)", the quoted trademark (2, 1991) [No. 2, 17, 1991, 199] is "KIND", the quoted trademark (3) [the trademark (registration No. 3, 1994, 194, 20) is similar to the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark")] is a character trademark "K," and if it is compared to the original trademark and the cited trademark, it is hard to cite or cite it in light of the general trademark "No. 2, 3, 197, the trademark of this case," which is similar to the trademark of this case.

However, even if there are similar parts between trademarks, the part constituting the essential part shall be deemed not to be a similar trademark unless it is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods in the transaction, and if the part indicated in the ordinary name, official mark, or technical mark of the designated goods is included among the elements of the trademark, such part shall not be deemed to be an essential part of the trademark as mentioned above because it has no distinctive character of other goods. Thus, even in determining the similarity of trademarks, it is reasonable to observe only the remainder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Hu1250, Sept. 14, 1992; 93Hu1254, Jan. 28, 1994).

According to the record, in comparison with the original trademark and the cited trademark (2) and (3), the applicant of the original trademark is a German company and is a relatively easily easily German word "Kiner" among the original trademark, and the shape of the original trademark is also a child. Thus, if the original trademark is related to the headquarters, party, party, beer, and beer as designated goods, the main trademark cannot be an essential part of the original trademark because it has no distinctiveness as designated goods, and ultimately, the main trademark cannot be deemed as a similar trademark because it is different from the cited trademark (2), (3) and its name or concept.

Furthermore, in comparison with the original trademark and the cited trademark (1), even if the part "eukal", which is the essential part of the original trademark, is called "Eukal" in German language, is different from the cited trademark (1) and from its name or concept, and the part "house eukal" is not referred to as "Eikal" in the English language, it is hard to see that both trademarks are similar trademarks since they can avoid misconception or confusion of their sources as a whole, because they are remarkably different from their external appearance due to the existence of diagrams and the difference between alpha and Korean language.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the original trademark is similar to the cited trademark (2) and (3) where the original trademark is named solely on the part of "Kiner", if it is named solely on the cited trademark (2) and (3) and eukal, it is similar to the cited trademark (1). Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on determining the similarity of trademarks, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it is obvious that this affected the result of the decision, and therefore, the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office corresponding to the original judgment for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)