(a) Whether or not the cited trademark with the words “Lacoste” written in the musical figure and its diagrams are similar to the cited trademark with the words “acste” written in Korean in the following parts surrounding the source:

B. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

A. The main trademark is a trademark which crosss “Lacoste” in the musical figure and its diagrams, and the cited trademark is different in terms of the name from each other in terms of a trademark consisting of a trademark marked with a “malicious” in Korean on the part below the center surrounding the source of the origin. However, in terms of the appearance and concept, the two trademarks are identical to each other because they cannot be directly perceived as a “malicious” in terms of the appearance and concept, and both trademarks are designated goods of the same kind, which belong to Class 1 product group No. 27 of the product classification, and if both trademarks are used for the designated goods, they are likely to mislead or confuse the source or quality of the goods. Thus, this trademark cannot be registered as it falls under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

B. The similarity of trademarks is not identical to each other, but should be determined by the method of objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, and determining whether the general consumers are likely to mislead or confuse the source of each designated goods in the transaction of each of the designated goods based on the direct-based perception that the general consumers feel two trademarks.

Article 9(1) of the Trademark Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 85Hu65 delivered on February 11, 1986, 85Hu40 and 41 delivered on October 28, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Hu56 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Dong District Court Decision 86Hu134 delivered on March 24, 1987)

The Patent Attorney White-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office 1985 High Trial Decision 677 Dated June 27, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that, in comparison with the trademark of this original source and the trademark (registration number omitted) based on the earlier application of another person (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark), the original trademark is a trademark consisting of malicious diagrams and the trademark consisting of the English letters "Lacoste" in its figure, and the cited trademark is different in terms of the name from the trademark consisting of the two trademarks with the trademark marked "Mincoste" in Korean on the part outside the original center surrounding the source of the trademark. However, in terms of the appearance and concept, the two trademarks are identical to each other because they cannot be perceived as "Minak" in terms of the appearance and concept, and they are designated goods of the same kind as the designated goods belonging to Class 1 of Article 27 of the same product classification, and if both trademarks are used on the designated goods, they are likely to cause mistake or confusion in the source or quality of the goods, and thus the cited trademark constitutes an act of refusal of registration under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

However, even though the similarity of trademarks is not identical to each other, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by a method of judging whether there is a concern for general consumers to mislead or confuse the source of each designated goods in the transaction of each designated goods by observing the two trademarks used for the same kind of goods objectively, comprehensively, and separately from their appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, and in order to determine whether there is a concern for general consumers to mislead or confuse the source of each designated goods in the transaction of each designated goods. From this point of view, the court below's decision is just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation, lack of reason, or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, which is judged identical in terms of the concept of the name and appearance, while the trademark at issue and the cited one are different in terms of the name and appearance.

With respect to the second ground:

In addition, even if it is assumed that the original trademark is a global well-known trademark, there is no possibility of misconception or confusion between the original trademark and the cited trademark, so the same purport of the judgment below is just and without merit.

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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)