Whether or not the trademark in question is similar to the trademark in question, which is written in English and Korean on the right side of the left side and is written in the left side of the leap-type on the right side of which the trademark is written in letter on the right side of the leap-type.

The trademark of this origin is composed of the diagrams on the left side, and is marked as English and Korean on the right side, and it is not similar in terms of appearance, name, and concept to the left side at the right upper corner of the pen type, which is the cited trademark.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Applicant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 420 decided July 27, 1985

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicant.

1. The original decision on the trademark of this case is that the trademark of this case is composed of a shape on the left side and is marked as in Korean language on the right side of the Gu, and it is designated as a trademark of this case as a prefabricated type No. 43, such as prefabricated type cl, Kaliba, and taccom, which is marked as a trademark at the left side of the upper right side of the square type. On the other hand, the cited trademark is marked as a trademark of this case as a trademark with Taekwondo clothes of this category No. 43 and heading as designated goods. Since the applied trademark has no special concept or name, it is hard to say that the applied trademark is recognized as a part on the left side, the applied trademark is recognized as being a trademark or a trademark of this case since there is no series of different relationship with the part on the right side of the letter, and in case of the cited trademark, it is recognized as a trademark of this case as a trademark or a trademark of this case, and thus, it is identical to the designated goods of this case.

2. However, the similarity of a trademark should be determined by examining the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark as a whole and separately, depending on whether the transaction of the designated goods is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel about the trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 85Hu65 delivered on February 11, 1986).

In comparison with the trademark applied in this case and the trademark cited in the original trial decision, the applicant trademark only focuses on the left side of the cited trademark without the cited trademark, and as the English letters are different from the cited trademark, they cannot be seen as similar in appearance.

Second, in terms of the name and concept, each "self-help" of the applied trademark and the cited trademark is similar to one another's trademark which is generally recognized among consumers. However, unless such part is known, it cannot be readily concluded that the two is a similar trademark solely on the ground that only the part "self-help" is removed from each constituent text of the applied trademark and the cited trademark is similar, and rather, when comparing the applied trademark with the "Sari Ji Ji Ji Ji Ji", the applied trademark, the cited trademark, the entire one cannot be said to be different from each other.

As above, it is reasonable to view that the above two trademarks with different external appearance and name are not likely to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods in the transaction of the designated goods. Thus, it is reasonable to hold that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the similarity of goods, which affected the decision of the court below.

3. Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)