A. Criteria for determining similarity of a combined trademark

(b) Whether it is similar to the trademark Rada and the trademark Rashra and the trademark Rashra;

A. Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined depending on whether two trademarks used for the same kind of product are likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the product by observing in terms of appearance, concept, and name, overall, objective, and separation, and in cases of the appearance, concept, and name. A trademark combining letters and letters shall always be determined by observing two trademarks used for the same kind of product as a whole, and whether they may cause confusion or confusion as to the origin of the product. Although a trademark combining letters and letters shall not always always be referred or conceptualized by the name or shape of the entire constituent part, but may be briefly named or conceptualized by only a part of the constituent parts, it is natural for them to separately observe and observe each constituent part in a natural case where it is natural under social norms, and it shall be determined as to

B. The applied trademark is a character trademark with the name of a well-known female designer from the English origin, and is registered only under the full name of "LAURA ASHEY" in several countries around the world, and is used only in the entire name of various advertising publicity materials or marks, and there is no material used in separation into "ASHHEY" from the trade of the designated goods into "LAURAASASALY". If under social norms, the applied trademark has an independent meaning of expressing that it is a product of a certain designer, and it is naturally indivisible to the extent that it is natural to separate and observe "LAURA", which is a name or name "LASYY", from the trade of the designated goods, so it is hard to see that there is no possibility of confusion between consumers and consumers as a whole, and it is reasonable to see that there is no possibility of confusion as to the appearance and appearance of the designated goods as a whole (see, e.g., "LAHHALA" and "YA" as a general consumer.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Hu544 delivered on November 14, 1989, 92Hu346 delivered on September 14, 1992, and 93Hu1001 delivered on November 26, 1993

The Patent Attorney Gangseo-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in Login Pululin Pullling

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

A person shall be appointed.

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney of the applicant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, as to whether or not the cited trademark (registration No. 1 omitted); hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted); hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted); hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted); hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark (registration No. 2 omitted; hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark); or, in title, the cited trademark (1) is different in terms of its appearance and concept from its appearance and concept; however, it is not a series of indivisibles to the extent that it is deemed natural in trade, and it is difficult to recognize that the trademark is identical or similar to the original trademark and the cited trademark (1) where it is referred to as the "A" and it is referred to as the "A", even if it is referred to as the "A" and the trademark is referred to as the "A's well-known trademark," and even if it is referred to as the "A's well-known trademark under subparagraph 2 of the Trademark Act, it cannot be excluded from its similarity.

However, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for misconceptions or confusions as to the source of goods by observing two trademarks used for the same kind of goods in terms of appearance, concept, and name. A trademark combining letters and letters shall always be named and conceptualized by the whole name or shape of the constituent part, but may be briefly named and conceptualized by only a part of the constituent parts, unless it is natural under social norms to separately observe and observe each constituent part, and it is natural or natural to separately observe it, or if it has an independent meaning by combining letters and letters, it shall be determined as a whole (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Hu544 delivered on Nov. 14, 1989; 92Hu346 delivered on September 14, 1992; 93Hu101 delivered on Nov. 26, 1993).

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 10 submitted by the applicant at the court below, this original trademark is a character trademark with the name of a well-known female designer from the English origin, and it is used only as a full-time trademark in various countries around the world, and its entire advertising advertising materials or marks are used only in the above whole name, and there is no evidence used in separation from "LAURA" among these advertising materials or marks into "ASHE". Thus, it is hard to find that the original trademark has a unique meaning to indicate that it is a product of a specific designer, and it is hard to see that the original trademark has a unique meaning as a whole in terms of social norms to see that it is a similar trademark of the designated goods, and thus, it is hard to see that it is natural to see that the original trademark has a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the designated goods, which is a trademark "LAUAHE" or a name, and thus, it is hard to see that it is a general consumer's name or an indivisible.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)