A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) Whether or not the cited trademark is similar to the cited trademark marked by displaying “CHAP” in a large and solid figure in English and marked “KUKJERUBBE” under the English letters with a large and strong size of “CHAPEN”;

(a) The similarity of trademarks should be determined by a method of objectively, overall and different observation of the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, even though they are not identical to each other, to determine whether there is possibility of mistake or confusion among each of the goods in the trade, even if they are used for the same kind of goods;

B. The cited trademark, which is marked with a large and strong sign of “CHMPP” and the English letters marked with a large and strong line, also differ from its appearance and name. However, the cited trademark, which is used at the same time in the context of the cited trademark, is a part of the cited trademark, and is used for the same meaning in a general trade society, is a transaction practice, so the two trademarks are identified in terms of their identity, and if they are used for the designated goods as identical goods, they cannot be ruled out any misunderstanding or confusion of the source of goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Hu66 delivered on February 28, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 81Hu47 delivered on December 27, 1983

휨 부실리 실베리오 소송대리인 변리사 황광현

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision No. 351 dated June 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the original decision, the court below held that the original trademark is a character trademark marked with a large and thick line "CHAP" and the cited trademark is a trademark with a large and long line "CHAPN" and it also differs from the English trademark marked with the appearance and name of "KUK JUBBER", and the appearance and name of the English trademark are different from each other. However, if the original trademark CHAP finds an English advance mark, it can be seen that the original trademark is a part of the original trademark with the meaning of the player's right holder, etc., and the original trademark CHAP is a part of the original trademark with the same meaning as that of the ordinary trading company, and it can not be ruled that the original trademark is a part of the cited trademark, but it can not be ruled that the original trademark is a part of the original trademark, which is a part of the trademark, and thus, it can be ruled that the original trademark is a part of the original trademark's trademark's trademark's English CHPN, which is a part of the cited trademark, and thus it cannot be ruled that it is a general user's.

Whether or not the combination trademark is similar to each other, even if it is not identical to each other, it should be determined by a method of objectively, overall, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks used for the same product in the same kind of transaction, and determining whether or not there is a possibility of mistake or confusion among each product in the transaction. Therefore, from this perspective, the court below's decision that maintained the first review ruling in accordance with Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, on the ground that the trademark at issue differs in the name and appearance, but the cited trademark is identical in the concept, is just, and there is no error of law of incomplete deliberation such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is groundless.

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)