(a) If it is possible to think of at least two names in a single trademark, whether one of them is identical or similar to another's trademark when it is deemed that the same or similar name is identical or similar to another's trademark;

B. Whether the trademark is similar to the trademark “LEONDAD”

(a) A trademark is not necessarily named and conceptualized by the name or pattern of the entire constituent part at all times, but can be briefly named by only a part of the constituent part unless it is inseparably indivisible to the extent that it is natural if observed separately from each constituent part, and if it is possible to think two or more names from one trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another’s trademark.

B. In title, “LEONARD” refers to “LEOND”, and the pre-registered trademark can not be deemed to be a trademark consisting of a series of sub-structures so far as to be separated and observed in terms of its constituent condition and can not be deemed to be a trademark consisting solely of “LEONNAE” in the preceding part of “LEONNAE”. In this case, both trademarks are referred to as “LENNA” and are very similar so both trademarks may cause confusion among general consumers or traders as to their source of goods if they are used for the same or similar designated goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1179 delivered on January 15, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 832) 94Hu1381 delivered on December 9, 1994 (dong) 94Hu1428 delivered on December 13, 1994

Lei District Court Decision 201Na14448 delivered on May 2, 201

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 93Na940 dated June 30, 1994

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

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

A trademark is not necessarily named and conceptualized by the name or pattern of the entire constituent part at all times, but can be briefly named by only a part of each constituent part unless it is separated and observed so far as it is not naturally indivisiblely, and if it is possible to think at least two names from one trademark, one of them is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark.

According to the reasoning of the original trial decision, the court below determined that in title, the term “LEOND” refers to “LEOND”, and the cited trademark cannot be deemed to be a trademark combining a series of sub-structures to the extent that it can be separated and observed in its constituent condition, and thus, it can be referred only to “LENADO” in the front part of the text part, and thus, in this case, since both trademarks are referred to as “LENDO” and are extremely similar, both trademarks may cause confusion among general consumers or traders if they are used for the designated goods of the same or similar kind, and thus, the original decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark by applying the provisions of Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act is justifiable.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the lack of reasons, or the similarity of trademarks, as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks. Since the main trademark is referred to as "lear" which is a French flag, it is not similar to the cited trademark, and it is not similar to the cited trademark, and it is recognized that general consumers or traders are clearly discriminated and recognized as well, so there is no risk of misunderstanding and confusion between the cited trademark and the cited trademark. However, it is difficult for general consumers in Korea to expect that the original trademark is created in French language, and there is no evidence to regard the original trademark as being well known domestically, and even if it is widely known, it is not possible to permit

All arguments are without merit.

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 Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)