[1] Method of determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether the trademark "PAASAL" and "Sara, PAA" are similar (negative)

[1] In determining similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks should be determined by comprehensively and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in order to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of the goods. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if the trademark can avoid misconceptions or confusions as to the origin clearly among general consumers, it shall not be deemed similar.

[2] The application trademark "PASASAL" and the cited trademark "PAPAA" mean that the appearance and concept are clearly different from each other, and in title, the trademark applied for registration is one of the "place" at the end of the cited trademark "spara", and since the "place" is not shown to be weak, both trademarks are deemed to be cleanly divided due to the difference between the two and three stages. Therefore, in light of the appearance, name, and concept of the original trademark and the cited trademark, it is not similar to each other in general consumers' overall, objective, and different observation in terms of the appearance, name, and concept, even if both trademarks are used together for the designated goods of the same kind as construction materials, it is not likely that the trader or general consumers mistake and confuse the origin of goods.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu2084 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2673), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu344 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3015), Supreme Court Decision 96Hu931 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 942)

Pamaman tetratra District Professional Decopid (Patent Attorney Na Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 95Na609 dated June 13, 1996

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below which rejected the registration under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act by examining the similarity between the trademark of this case and the cited trademark "SASAL" (hereinafter this original trademark) registered by the earlier application and the cited trademark "SA" (registration No. 121354, Dec. 18, 1985, 1985, hereinafter the cited trademark "the cited trademark"), while both trademarks are not similar to their appearance and concept, since the main trademark is called "Sra", the main trademark is called "Sra", and it is not different from the cited trademark called "Sra", and the first two are the same, and the first two are extremely similar in terms of the overall name, and because goods are identical or similar to the designated goods as the designated goods, both trademarks are likely to mislead or confuse general consumers or traders with respect to goods if they are used together with the designated goods, thereby refusing registration under Article 7 (1) of the Trademark Act.

However, in determining the similarity of trademarks, the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark should be observed as a whole and separately and should be determined by whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if a trademark as a whole can clearly mislead or confuse general consumers as to the origin, it shall not be deemed similar (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Hu344 delivered on September 6, 1996; 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996).

Therefore, the records show that the appearance and concept of the original trademark and the cited trademark are clearly different from each other, such as the judgment of the court below on the basis of the records, and in title, the original trademark has only one "place" at the end of the cited trademark, but the "place" does not seem to be weak, so the two trademarks are deemed to be distinguishable from the two trademarks due to the difference between the second and third grades.

Therefore, considering the appearance, name, and concept of the original trademark and the cited trademark, it is not similar to each other when the general consumers observe the trademark as a whole, objectively, and objectively from the standpoint of general consumers. Therefore, even if both trademarks are used together for the same designated goods as the building materials, it is not likely to cause misconception and confusion about the origin of goods by traders or general consumers.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the name of both trademarks was similar on the ground that the name of both trademarks was similar, and the court below ultimately erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, which affected the result of the trial decision, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the determination of similarity

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)