A. Whether both trademarks should be deemed similar, if a combined trademark is briefly named and perceived only with a specific part of the constituent parts, or if two or more names and concepts have been generated from a single combination trademark, if the name and concept of a specific part are similar to those of another trademark (affirmative)

B. Whether the trademark is similar to the cited trademark and the cited trademark (affirmative)

A. A trademark shall be the subject of a final judgment, or a trademark which is not recognized as being inseparably indivisible to the extent that it is natural in the transaction to separate and observe each constituent part from each constituent part may be briefly named, perceived, or known only with a specific part that is easily leading attention from one trademark. In such a case, if the name, concept, and concept of a specific part are similar to those of other trademarks, both trademarks shall be deemed similar even if there are different parts.

B. The registered trademark consists of three elements, namely, the burden figure, and the figure, but it does not consist of a series of indivisibles to the extent that it is deemed to be natural stimulated, making it possible for ordinary consumers to briefly name and recognize only “BP” that is easy to attract attention by marking in particular the constituent parts, and in such a case, it is called “non-pact” and thus, it is the same as the name of the quoted list, and it is not clearly distinguishable from each other because the English text BP alone does not make it difficult to understand what is in a direct sense. Therefore, both trademarks are similar.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4540, Dec. 27, 1991) (Law No. 1991, Dec. 94, 199) (Law No. 1991, May 8, 1990)

Hansung Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Training Exchange (Patent Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office trial decision 88DaDa302 dated August 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the person who has been requested for adjudication.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. The trademark should be the subject of the judgment of conviction. However, a trademark which is not recognized as being indivisible to the extent that it is natural in the transaction because it is not recognized that the separate observation of each constituent part is an integral combination, among the constituent parts, can be briefly named and recognized only with a specific part that is easily leading attention, or two or more titles, concepts, and concepts can be drawn from one trademark. In such a case, if the name, concept, and concept of a specific part are similar to those of other trademarks, even if there are different parts, both trademarks shall be deemed similar. (See Supreme Court Decisions 83Hu67 delivered on Nov. 13, 1984; 86Hu129 delivered on Feb. 24, 1987; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu136 delivered on Feb. 24, 1987; 86Hu136 delivered on February 24, 197).

2. In accordance with the record, the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case are composed of three elements, namely the subject-matter, figure, and the cited trademark, but it is not a series of indivisiblely indivisible combinations to the extent that it is deemed to be harmful to nature, making it possible for ordinary consumers to simply call and recognize the “BP” that is easy to attract attention by marking the constituent parts in particular, and in such a case, the term “non-pris” is the same as the name of the cited trademark, and in addition, it is not clearly distinguishable from the English text BP alone because it is difficult to understand what is in direct sense. Thus, both trademarks are similar.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport shall be justified, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, lack of reasons, and incomplete hearing.

3. The appeal shall be dismissed for more than one reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

United Kingdom of Great Britain (Presiding Judge) Abrept Ma-dong Lye Kim Sang-won