Whether the trademark “SNTA RITA” and the cited trademark are similar (negative)

In light of the direct perception that the trademark “SNA RITA” is used as a standard for ordinary consumers or traders, it cannot be readily concluded that the part “SNTA” is considered to be its essential part, and that the part alone is referred and conceptualized. Thus, even if the part “SNTA” of the applied trademark is identical to that of the applied trademark, it cannot be said that there is a concern for misconception and confusion as to the origin of the goods.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4,210 of January 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4470, May 28, 1991)

Patent Attorney Kang-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office on June 26, 1991

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

The court below held that the original trademark is a combination of letters and diagrams, and the designated goods are 10 items, such as ginseng owners, Bakiskies, brands, shampoos, shampoos, beer, and beer, and the designated goods are 10 items, such as Cheongju, Cheongju, Cheongju, ginseng owners, and beer, and the designated goods are 6 categories of goods. The original trademark is recognized as a trademark having "SNA" and "RITA" respectively for ordinary consumers or customers, and if the original trademark is recognized as a trademark "SNA" in the same or similar goods, it is likely to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods if the two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods, and therefore the original trademark falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act, and thus, it is not possible to obtain registration.

However, the similarity of a trademark shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of goods based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with the trademark through the objective, overall, and external observation of the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks used for the same product (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1745, Feb. 13, 1990). In this case, the applied trademark “SNTARA” cannot be deemed to be an indivisible combination of the parts “SNTA” and “RITA”. However, in light of the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with the above trademark, it is observed that among them, the part “SNA” is the essential part of the above trademark, and it cannot be readily concluded that the above trademark itself is referred only to as “SNTA” and the above part of the trademark itself is similar to the above part of the trademark, and thus, it cannot be concluded that there is any possibility of confusion as to the origin of the trademark.

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