[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] The case holding that trademark "BYTRIL" and "Copia" are not similar

[1] In determining similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by observing the appearance, name, and concept of trademarks objectively, as a whole, in an objective, overall, and separately, thereby causing misconceptions or confusions among ordinary consumers or traders as to the origin of goods in light of the trade norms. Even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, the trademark as a whole shall not be deemed similar in cases where it is possible for consumers or traders to clearly misleads or confuse the origin.

[2] The case holding that trademark "BYTRIL" and "Copia" are not similar

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Articles 51 and 52 of the Trademark Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1404) Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2804 delivered on October 13, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2693)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term.

Korean Micro-Organism Research Institute (Patent Attorney Park Gon-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo1570 delivered on July 2, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In determining similarity of a trademark, the similarity of a trademark shall be determined by the objective, overall, and separately observing the external appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in order to cause misconceptions or confusions among ordinary consumers or traders as to the origin of the product in light of the trade norms. Even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible for consumers or traders to clearly avoid misconceptions or confusions as to the origin, the trademark as a whole cannot be deemed similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu1494, Mar. 22, 1996; 97Hu2804, Oct. 13, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that (a) the mark of this case is composed of "animals" as the mark of this case, and (b) 'BYTRIL' (registration number omitted), in comparison with the trademark of this case, the term "animals" as the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case under the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 83 of February 23, 1998), "TRIL" or "TTRIL" as the designated goods of this case are many registered trademarks, and thus, the term "the essential part of the registered trademark of this case" is "BAY" because it does not have distinctiveness, and (a) the trademark of this case does not have distinctiveness, and thus, even if it does not fall under the meaning of "the goods of this case" or "the goods of this case which are identical to the registered trademark of this case, it cannot be seen that the trademark of this case can be used directly for the purpose of "the goods of this case" or "the goods of animal disease".

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, omission of judgment, lack of reasons, and incomplete hearing, as alleged in the grounds

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)