A. In a case where it is possible to think of two or more names and concepts in one trademark, whether the two trademarks are similar even if one of them is identical or similar to the name, concept, or concept of another's trademark (affirmative)

B. Whether the cited trademark is similar to the applied trademark registered previously (affirmative)

A. In a case where a combined trademark does not form a name or concept only on the basis of the entire constituent part of the trademark, but is not an integral combination to such an extent that, if observed separately from each constituent part, it would not be naturally unrecognified, only a part of the constituent part may be briefly named or conceptualized, and where one trademark can think of two or more titles, concepts, or concepts, among them, even if the name, concept is not identical or similar to the name, concept, or concept of another trademark, if the other titles, concepts are similar to that of the trademark of another person, the two trademarks shall be deemed similar.

B. In the application trademark ", the cited trademark " and prior-registered" are different from the composition of "the shape of the figure", but the letter of the applied trademark consists of two elements such as "new samples" and "Hasssssss", and it is not indivisiblely combined so that it is deemed natural to separate and observe these two elements. Thus, the applied trademark can be briefly named as "new samples". In such a case, the trademark is identical with the cited trademark, name, and concept, and if two trademarks are used for the designated goods, it is likely to mislead general consumers or consumers as to the origin of the goods, and thus, it is not possible to obtain registration as a similar trademark.

Article 9 (1) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1561 delivered on May 2, 1990 (Gong1990, 1371) 90Hu1734 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1294) 90Hu2010 delivered on June 28, 1991 (Gong191, 2044)

Patent Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 90Na125 Dated March 14, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

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

In a case where a combined trademark does not form a name or concept only based on the whole constituent part, but it is not an integral combination to such an extent that it cannot be natural if observed separately from each constituent part, then only a part of the constituent part may arise, and where it is possible to think of two or more titles, concepts, and concepts from one trademark, even if the concept of name is not identical or similar to another's trademark's name, concept, and concept are similar to that of another's trademark, the two trademarks shall be deemed similar (see Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1741 delivered on March 27, 191).

The court below affirmed the decision of the court below that the original trademark can be briefly named as a "new sample" because the applicant applied for April 18, 1989 and rendered a ruling of rejection could cause general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the source of goods, since the trademark which is the cited trademark of another person by earlier application is composed of two trademarks, and the appearance of figures and the composition of figures are different, but the text parts of the original trademark are composed of two trademarks, and it is not indivisible to the extent that it is natural to separately observe and observe these two elements. Thus, the original trademark can be seen as a "new sample". In that case, the two trademarks are identical with the cited trademark, and it is likely that general consumers or consumers might confuse the source of goods if they are used for the designated goods as the same, the original trademark is not identical to the original trademark (wholly amended by Act No. 4210, Jan. 13, 1990). Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehensioning of legal principles as to the relation between the original trademark and the original trademark.

Therefore, the appeal by the applicant is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)