(a) Criteria for determining the similarity of two trademarks used for the same or similar goods;

(b) In the application trademark " "(negative)" and "whether the cited trademark registered by the earlier application is similar" (negative)

A. Whether two trademarks used in the same or similar goods are similar should be determined based on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods in light of the common sense of trade by observing objectively, comprehensively, and systematically in terms of their external appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are similar parts between trademarks, it shall not be a similar trademark that is likely to mislead or confuse general consumers as to the origin of goods when the overall observation is conducted.

B. The part of the cited trademark "" and "Korea-style trademark" registered by the earlier application is merely the name of the Republic of Korea and thus it is difficult to see that the part of the trademark "application trademark" and "Korea-style trademark" is a trademark that can identify one's goods from general consumers or consumers, and therefore, it is difficult to see that the part of the trademark "application trademark" and "Korea-style trademark" are identical to the part of the trademark "application trademark" and "Korea-style trademark", and therefore, it is difficult to see that the part is identical to the part of the trademark "application trademark" and "Korea-style trademark".

Article 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (Amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu274 delivered on June 8, 1990, 89Hu896 delivered on June 26, 1990, and 90Hu472 delivered on September 14, 1990

Patent Attorney Kim Yoon-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office 190 June 23, 1990

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

The grounds of appeal by the applicant’s attorney are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In determining whether a trademark falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990; hereafter the same shall apply in this case), the issue of whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in light of the common sense of transaction by objectively, comprehensively, and objectively observing in terms of appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are similar parts among trademarks, it shall not be a similar trademark that is likely to cause misconception or confusion when the overall observation is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu127, Jun. 13, 1989; 90Hu274, Jun. 8, 1990; 89Hu9790, Jun. 26, 1990; 9Hu949094, Apr. 9, 1996).

2. On January 18, 198, the lower court determined that, in comparison with “the trademark of another person’s registered trademark by an earlier application (hereinafter referred to as “the trademark later”) and “the trademark” (hereinafter referred to as “the trademark of another person’s registered trademark by an earlier application”), the applicant applied for trademark January 18, 198 and rendered a ruling of rejection (hereinafter referred to as “original trademark”), the “original trademark” is composed of “TALK” and “the trademark of another person’s registered trademark by an earlier application,” and “the trademark of another person’s registered trademark”, “the trademark of another person’s registered”, “the trademark of another person’s registered”, “the trademark of another person’s registered trademark”, “the trademark of another person’s registered trademark”, “the trademark of another person’s Republic of Korea,” and “the trademark of another person’s Republic of Korea,” and “the trademark of another person’s Republic of Korea” and “the trademark of another person’s general consumers” and “the trademark of another person’s origin or origin” as “the trademark of the other person’s trademark of this case,”, “the other person’s trademark of this case,”,”, “the trademark of this case.

3. However, the phrase "Korean characters" is merely the name of the Republic of Korea and thus it is difficult to see that the part of "original trademark" and "human-use trademark" of "original trademark" are parts of "original trademark" and "human-use trademark" and "human-use trademark" and "human-use trademark", which are parts of "original trademark" and "human-use trademark" are parts of "original trademark" and "human-use trademark" and "human-use trademark". Thus, even if the part is identical with the above two trademarks, it cannot be said that there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods because they are not the main parts of the above two trademarks.

Nevertheless, the court below held that, solely on the grounds that the constituent elements of "original trademark" and "Korean characters" are identical to those of "original trademark", "original trademark" and "original trademark" and "original trademark" are identical to those of "human-use trademark" and "original trademark" and "original-use trademark" are not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act. Thus, there is no error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles on the similarity of trademarks, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial decision, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, the case shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the appellate court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)