[1] Method of determining similarity of trademarks

[2] The case holding that where the trademark " "" and the prior registered trademark " " are referred to respectively as "won" in each part of the letters, their names and concepts are identical, and both trademarks are similar to those which may cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods as a whole, on the grounds that they are referred respectively to as "won" and "won"

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu2258 delivered on June 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2178) Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1146 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1501)

[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant]

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2007Heo13582 Decided April 11, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there may be misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods in trade, on the basis of the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with the trademark by observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods objectively, comprehensively, as a whole, in an objective manner. Even if one of the appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid confusion as to the origin clearly as a whole, it shall not be deemed similar trademark, but if it is easy for ordinary consumers to misleads or confuse as to the origin of goods in trade, it shall be deemed as similar trademark, in light of the appearance, name, and concept.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below is justified in holding that if the trademark in this case (No. 40-206-760) composed of " "" and the prior registered trademark (registration No. 51242) composed of " "" are referred respectively to "won" in each part of the text, their names and concepts are identical, and both trademarks are identical in the same name and concept, and they are similar trademarks that may cause misconception and confusion as to the origin of goods as a whole. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)