Cases where a trademark of "themea letter" and "themea letter" are similar.

A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined by whether two trademarks used for the same kind of product are confused or likely to be confused in trade by objectively, in whole, and objectively, comprehensively, and objectively observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark.

나. 상표 "ＴＥＴＲＡＭＹＣＩＮ"과 상표 "ＴＥＲＲＡＭＹＣＩＮ"은 유사하다.

Article 23 of the Trademark Act, Article 25 of the Trademark Act

Javia-Sspa and commercial company

Modrified Possition Co.

Patent Country

Having destroyed the original trial decision;

The case shall be remanded to the appellate trial court of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

The grounds of appeal by appellant shall be examined.

According to the original decision, the court below compared the registered trademark of this case and the mark of this subparagraph (a) with the former consisting of TERRAMYCIN, and the latter is "NEO", "KEWHA" and "Netro", and the latter is not similar to the overall appearance.

In addition, with regard to the former's name, it is clear that (a) the mark is named as "tetrama," while it is obvious that the words "the NAo," etc., which can reduce friendly friendliness among general consumers, are naturally named as "the NAtheme," because the words "the NAo," etc. are clearly indicated among general consumers.

However, if we observe the title "theme body" and (a) of the registered trademark with the title "theme body" or "theme body" compared with the word "theme body" or "theme body" with the word "the word "theme body" which is emitted from the word "the word "theme body" can not be distinguished from the word "theme body", and the registered trademark "theme body" with the word "theme body" can only be distinguished from the word "theme body" with the word "theme body" and "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" or "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" can only be distinguished from the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" or "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "theme" as "theme" with the word "theme" with the word "the word "theme" with the word".

However, the similarity of trademarks under the Trademark Act should be determined by whether two trademarks used for the same kind of product are objectively, overall, and conceptually different from their appearance, name, and concept, and whether there is a possibility of confusion or misunderstanding in trade. It should be deemed as similar trademarks that can be easily confused in the overall observation because the letters forming the essential parts are similar to those of the claimant. According to the records, the claimant's assertion is similar to that of the claimant because (a) the part indicating the Roman characters among the marks is deemed to be similar to that of the claimant. Thus, the claimant's assertion that "TTRAMYCIN" is deemed to be the essential part of the trademark, and "TERAMYCIN" as the registered trademark is similar to each other in appearance, but it is difficult to completely observe "T" as "T" and "t" as "t" in subparagraph 3 as "t" even if there is a difference in terms of their names, it is also hard to see that the court below's assertion that it is similar to the other phrase "t" as a whole.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying mutatis mutandis Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu