[1] Method of determining similarity of trademarks

[2] The case holding that "MICOSHED" and " Microfa", which are pharmaceutical trademarks, are different from each other

[1] In determining similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by observing the external appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in a whole or separately, thereby causing 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 as a whole can avoid misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of the goods clearly, it shall not be deemed similar.

[2] The case holding that although the term "MICTROSHED", which is the main trademark, is not separated from appearance in its composition, it is hard to view that the combination does not create a new concept, but it is a combination of new concept and it is difficult to view that the combination is not natural, and it is not possible to separate and observe it, the term "MICTRO" can be separately observed in the above two parts, and it is not only the general term widely used, but also the term "MICCRO" as the connected word with the meaning of "small, U.S., and 10/100,000" as well as the designated goods of the 10th category of goods belonging to the designated goods of the main trademark, it is hard to see that the term "the general consumers are not the same as the designated goods of the main trademark," and the term "the general consumers are not the same as those of the goods of the main trademark," the term "the general consumers are not the same as those of the goods of the main trademark," and therefore, the term "the general consumers are not identical as the designated goods of the goods of this part".

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2515 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2620), Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1540 delivered on March 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 1425), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu57 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2591), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1500 delivered on March 22, 1996 (the same purport)

Josonnson (Patent Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94Hun-won755 dated July 29, 1995

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below affirmed the original decision that rejected the registration of the original trademark since it is difficult to see that the original trademark is composed of two main parts of the "MICTRO" and the "SHESD" in the "MICTROSHESD" (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") of this case, and that the original trademark is separated or abbreviated into the "MICCRO", and that the name and concept of goods are identical to those of the consumers, thereby causing misconceptions and confusions as to the source of goods delivery. In order to ensure a simple and swift transaction, the original trademark is deemed to have been composed of one main part of the main parts of the trade society, which is separated, observed or simplified, and the original trademark is likely to cause confusions and confusions among consumers.

However, in determining the similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by comprehensively and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in order to cause misconceptions or confusions as to the origin of goods. Thus, even if any of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if a trademark as a whole can cause consumers to mistake or confuse sources clearly, it shall not be deemed similar (see each of the Decisions 95Hu57, Jun. 30, 1995; 90Hu2515, Sept. 24, 1991).

Therefore, according to the records, the term "MICTROSHESD" is a general term used widely as a connected word with the meaning of "MICTRCO", "MICCO", "MICCRD", and "SIESD", but it is not a new concept due to the combination, and it is difficult to view that the combination is not a combination to the extent that it is natural if it is separately observed, and it is difficult to view that the combination is not a combination to the extent that it is natural. Among them, the term "MICCO" is a combination with the meaning of "small, US, and 10/100,00," and the term is not only a general term used widely as a connected word with the meaning of "MICTRCO", "MICCRDADE", "MICTRALE", "MICCRESE", "MICES", "MICES", "MICES", and "IES", and thus, the term is ultimately lacking in the meaning of "IES", "products", etc.

If so, the original trademark and the cited trademark are observed in the whole, objective, and separation from the perspective of ordinary consumers, it is not similar to each other. Accordingly, even if both trademarks are used in the same designated goods similar to the same goods, there is no concern for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source of goods. However, the court below judged that the cited trademark is likely to mislead or confuse the source of goods for ordinary consumers with the same name and concept as that of the cited trademark in such a case on the premise that the cited trademark is its abbreviationd as "MICO". Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, which affected the result of the trial decision, and there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)