A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) Whether the applied trademark [application trademark] and the cited trademark [personal trademark] are similar

A. In determining similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined depending on whether the appearance, name, and concept of trademarks are observed in a general and different manner, and whether there is a concern for misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods in light of the common sense of trade of goods. Even if there are different parts among trademarks, if the letters constituting the essential parts are similar and are likely to be confused in their names or concepts, they shall be deemed similar trademarks.

(b) the applied trademark and the cited trademark are identical or similar to one another in their external appearance, name and concept;

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Hu70 Delivered on December 26, 1984, 84Hu88 Delivered on February 13, 1985

Patent Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 1026, Jul. 19, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In determining similarity of a trademark, the similarity of a trademark shall be determined depending on whether the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark is identical to the overall and separately from the appearance of the trademark, and whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods in light of the common sense of the trade of goods. If there is a difference between different parts, and it is easy for consumers to confuse with the name or concept as it is similar (see Supreme Court Decision 84Hu70 delivered on December 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Hu8 delivered on February 13, 1985; hereinafter referred to as this "original trademark") of this case, which is the trademark of another person (hereinafter referred to as "patent registration number omitted) by an earlier application, and the trademark of this case, which is the trademark of this case, are identical to the trademark of this case, but the trademark of this case, which is the trademark of this case, can be seen as being identical to the trademark of this case, and thus, it is difficult to cite the trademark of this case as the trademark of this case and its general consumers.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to consider the applied trademark of this case as a similar trademark that falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act and maintain the ruling of rejection. Therefore, there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles.

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)