A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) Whether or not the applied trademark is similar to the registered trademark;

A. Whether two trademarks are similar to the same or similar trademarks are determined depending on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods in light of the common sense of trade by observing objectively, comprehensively, and differently from their appearance, name, and concept in terms of their appearance, name, and concept. Thus, even if a similar part between trademarks exists, it is not a similar trademark that there is no possibility that the part constituting the essential part might cause misconception or confusion when comprehensively observing the whole part.

B. The part of the applied trademark's trademark's trademark's trademark's trademark's "the two sides" and the cited trademark's "the two sides are different from the appearance and name," and even in concept, the part of the applied trademark's "the two sides" and the cited trademark's "the two sides" are referred to as "the ordinary name or technical mark of the goods" as if all the designated goods are packed in a container in the container, one is merely merely merely an ordinary name or technical mark of the goods, but it is not a trademark's function as a trademark that can enable general consumers or consumers to distinguish one's goods, but the part of the applied trademark's "the two sides" and the cited trademark's "the two parts are not identical or similar to the cited trademark's "the two sides", so there is no possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu39 Decided October 10, 1984, 85Hu116 Decided December 24, 1985, 87Hu58 Decided November 24, 1987, 87Hu97 Decided December 8, 1987

Attorney Park Yong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 539 decided July 26, 1986

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Office.

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

1. In determining whether a trademark falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the issue of whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar shall be determined based on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in light of the common sense of trade by observing the appearance, name, and concept objectively, overall, and separationly, and by observing the origin of the goods. Even if there are similar parts between trademarks, it shall not be a similar trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Hu39, Oct. 10, 1984; 85Hu116, Dec. 24, 1985; 87Hu58, Nov. 24, 1987; 87Hu79, Dec. 7, 1987).

2. On August 21, 1984, the court below held that, in preparation for B, the applicant's trademark which was rejected (the latter is referred to as the "original trademark") and the trademark of another person (the latter is referred to as the "personally used trademark") by earlier application, "the original trademark is a letter composed of "the Korean-Japan", and the cited trademark is a combination trademark consisting of figures and letters "the Korean-Japan" in Korean, while the cited trademark is a combination trademark consisting of figures and letters composed of "the Korean-Japan" in Korean-style characters, but if the main trademark is separately observed, the essential part is "the Korean-Japan" and "the Korean-Japan" trademark indicating the applicant's trade name, and since the appearance, name, and concept are completely identical even if any, the cited trademark falls under one of the essential parts of the original trademark, the original trademark cannot be registered as a similar trademark under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

3. However, in comparison with the cited trademark of the original trademark and the cited trademark, the original trademark is a character trademark consisting of letters and figures indicated in the Korean language, and it is different from the cited trademark, even if she can see that the original trademark is a combination trademark consisting of figures and letters written in Korean. Even though she is named, she is called the original trademark "Fengb World Cup" and the cited trademark "Feb World Cup" and the cited trademark is called "Feb World Cup" and it is different from the ordinary consumers or consumers, and even in its concept, she is not identical or similar to the original trademark "Feb World Cup" or "Feb World Cup" because it is recognized that all of the designated goods were packed in a container or a package of the cited goods, and it is difficult to see that the part is identical or similar to the original trademark "non-technically identical or similar to the original trademark" because it is recognized that there is no possibility of confusion between the original trademark and the latter.

Therefore, it is apparent that the original trademark is not identical or similar to the cited trademark, and the court below held that the original trademark is a trademark which cannot be registered under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act because the two trademarks are deemed identical or similar to the cited trademark. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the similarity of trademarks, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial decision. Thus, there is a reason to issue an argument that points out this issue, and the original trial decision cannot be reversed.

4. Therefore, the case shall be reversed, and the case shall be 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 Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)