(a) Criteria for determining whether a trademark is essential for a combined trademark;

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

(a) In determining the essential part of the trademark, the meaning of the trademark should be based on ordinary consumers or traders, and it shall not be considered that the trademark can be reported, directly and indirectly shouldered, and that the report can only be known after being examined and examined or finding it in advance.

B. The applied trademark is combined with the two separate letters of the SOCE and the GENERALE. Thus, it is recognized by any one of the two separate letters. Among them, if recognized by the "GENERALE", it appears that the cited trademark is similar or similar to the cited trademark. Therefore, if both trademarks are used on the same or similar designated goods, it is likely to cause mistake or confusion of the source of goods in the product transaction.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu132 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 541) 88Hu1410 delivered on September 29, 1989 (Gong1989, 1585) 91Hu1182 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992, 793) B. Supreme Court Decision 89Hu766 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong190, 654) 91Hu1465 delivered on March 10, 192 (Gong192, 1307)

[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 90Na1748 dated February 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark as the main trademark is the support of the category 22 of the product classification, Nowon-gu, and bags, etc., and the trademark as the cited trademark is the product classification 22 of the product classification, and the trademark as the cited trademark is the product classification. The trademark as the main trademark and the pre-registered trademark indicate the "SOCE" and the "Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., and Co., Ltd..., Ltd..., LTRD., and Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the trademark as cited in the pre-registered trademark," and the "SPENE" and "GENERALL" are the main trademark as a simple and sealed mark with no distinctive character, and since the two trademarks are identical in terms of the concept and there is no difference between the two trademarks in terms of the last part of the name, but there is no difference between the two trademarks, and thus, there is no difference between the two trademarks and the general consumers.

However, in determining the essential parts of a trademark, the meaning of the trademark must be that of a general consumer or trader and that of a person directly shouldered by him, and it is not subject to consideration to the effect that he can only make a report after being examined and examined or finding in advance. Therefore, it is not subject to consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 86Hu132 delivered on February 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Hu1410 delivered on September 29, 198; Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1182 delivered on December 27, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1182 delivered on December 27, 199), among the above judgments of the court below, that the trademark's "SOCIEEE" is a common name and thus cannot be an essential part of the trademark. However, it cannot be deemed that there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the essential parts of the combined trademark, such as the original decision, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or rules of evidence.

Meanwhile, according to the records of this case, since the trademark of this case is combined with two separate letters of “SOCE” and “GENERALE”, it is recognized by any one of two separate letters, and among them, if it is recognized by “GENERALE”, it appears that the cited trademark and its name and concept are similar or similar to those of the cited trademark. Therefore, when both trademarks are used for the same or similar designated goods, it is likely to cause mistake or confusion of the source of goods in the transaction of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Hu766, Feb. 13, 1990; 91Hu1465, Mar. 10, 1992). Thus, it cannot be said that the above error of the judgment of the court below affected the result of the trial decision.

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)