Criteria for determining whether a trademark is similar to a trademark

The similarity of a trademark is a formal and technical concept that indicates a similar one in terms of appearance, name, and concept, even though compared two trademarks are not the same, and it is a relative concept that can clearly vary depending on what is the characteristics of the three trademarks above, and the conclusion may vary depending on what is the above-mentioned characteristics. Thus, the similarity of a trademark is ultimately determined on the basis of whether it is likely to cause confusion as to the source of the goods from the standpoint that it is necessary to prohibit confusions by trademark appearance, which is an institutional purpose of the Trademark Act, and protect the business reputation of the trademark owner who is incorporated into the trademark.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Han Han Electric Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Patent Attorney Han Han-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office No. 181 dated April 30, 1986

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office by destroying the original trial decision.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the registered trademark of this case is a combination trademark of diagrams and characters as indicated in Berne Part, and that the trademark of this case "(a) is similar to the registered trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case is different from its appearance in terms of the similarity of the above registered trademark of this case, but (a) the mark of this case is the (a) mark composed of the (a) mark composed of the (b) mark with the mark "FT" in Korean, and the (a) mark is the common name of goods using the (a) mark, and is registered on August 11, 1982 with the trademark of this case as the designated goods and (b) the trademark of this case is identical to the trademark of this case with the trademark of this case, and it is recognized that (a) the trademark of this case is identical to the trademark of this case as the trademark of this case, since it is the common name of goods using the (b) mark with the trademark of this case and it is recognized that the trademark of this case is identical to the trademark of this case.

However, the similarity of a trademark is not the same as two trademarks, but it is a formal and technical concept that indicates a similar one in terms of appearance, name, and concept, and it is a relative concept that can clearly change the conclusion depending on what is the characteristics of the three trademarks above, and therefore, the similarity of a trademark is ultimately determined on the basis of whether it is likely to cause confusion as to the source of goods from the standpoint that it is necessary to prohibit the initial act of confusion by trademark appearance, which is an institutional purpose of the trademark law, and to protect the business reputation of the trademark owner.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, among the records of this case, the defendant's trademark (Ga) is expressed on the left part of the same product (Ga) and the defendant's trade name (Ga) is expressed on the part of the defendant's registered trademark (Ga). The defendant's use of the (Ga) mark in this case is obviously obvious that there is no possibility of confusion as to the source of the product, and it cannot be deemed an act of infringement of trademark rights under Article 36 of the Trademark Act is obvious in light of the legal principles as to the criteria for determining the similarity of trademark as seen above. Nevertheless, the court below's decision that "Ga" falls under the scope of the right of the trademark of the claimant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is argued that there is a criticism among the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office, which is the original trial, to reverse the original trial decision, and to make a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)