(a) Whether the applied trademark "PROSTIN E2" and the cited trademark "" are similar (affirmative)

(b) Where the applied trademark is applied for as a combined trademark of the basic trademark registered earlier than the cited trademark, a separate judgment as to the similarity of the cited trademark (affirmative)

A. The cited trademark "PROSTIN E2" is similar to the overall name since "E2", which is the latter part of "PROSIN", which is the latter part of the original trademark, is not similar, is merely an indivisible and is merely an additional expression and thus "E2", which is the latter part of the original trademark. It is determined by the method of determining whether there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the source between the goods in trade by objectively, collectively, and systematically observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks, the objective, overall, and the two trademarks, and determining whether there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the source between the goods in trade. Thus, if the original trademark is used for the designated goods similar to the designated goods of the cited trademark, general consumers are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the cited trademark and the source of goods. Thus, this original trademark cannot be registered under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990).

B. The main trademark is a trademark applied in combination to "PROSIN", which is a prior registered trademark, and even if the registration of the cited trademark is permitted after the registration of the said basic trademark, it is necessary to re-determine whether the cited trademark is similar to the cited trademark separately from the basic trademark in registering the original trademark.

(a)Article 9(1)7(b) of the Trademark Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Hu26 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 820) 82Hu3 delivered on February 26, 1985 (Gong1985, 472) 85Hu129 delivered on September 23, 1986 (Gong1986, 2948)

DJO Law Firm Central Patent Office, Attorneys Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88Hun-won345 dated October 28, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The original trademark "POSTIN E2" and the cited trademark ", although its appearance is not similar to the cited trademark, its overall name is similar to its designated goods (the designated goods of the original trademark shall be non-productive medicine, the designated goods of the cited trademark shall be sensitively known, and the goods of the cited trademark shall be used for the designated goods). As such, if the original trademark is used for the designated goods, general consumers may cause mistake and confusion between the cited trademark and the source of goods. This original trademark cannot be registered under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990) and the cited trademark "," the original trademark shall not be registered under Article 9 (1) 2 of the former Trademark Act, and its overall name shall be similar to its designated goods (the designated goods of the original trademark shall be non-productive medicine, the designated goods of the cited trademark shall be identical to the original trademark, and the latter part of the Korean Intellectual Property Office 2, 2008 after the declaration of whether it is likely to cause for confusion between the goods;

In addition, the precedents of the theory of lawsuit cannot be considered appropriate in this case. Therefore, the arguments are groundless.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)