(a) Criteria for determining special similarity of combined trademarks;

(b) The registration price for the principal trademark which is marked in a pen in the same pattern as that of the latter and marked in the following English; and

A. In light of the provisions of Article 8 of the Trademark Act, a special distinction under the Trademark Act is generally interpreted as indicating the distinctiveness or origin of the goods of a trader or trader. Thus, in a trademark which combines figures and letters, it shall not only be subject to the appearance, name, concept, etc. of the trademark, but also be subject to the overall composition of the combined trademark, and it shall be determined by whether general traders or consumers can recognize the origin of the goods by the trademark.

나. 본원상표는 ◇과 같은 마름모꼴의 도형안에 필기체로 " "라 표기하고 그 아래 영문자 "ALPHA"를 표기하여서 된 도형과 문자의 결합상표로서 " " 도형은 간단하고 흔한 표장이고 그 안에 표기된 " "는 그리스 자모의 첫째 자인 알파를 표기한 것이고 그 아래 표기된 영문자 "ALPHA"는 위 " " 를 영문자로 표기한 것으로 상호 동일한 관념을 가진 표장이라고 할 것이어서 본원상표를 전체적으로 살펴볼 때 간단하고 흔한 표장임을 면할 수 없고 일반 수요자나 거래자에게 자타상품의 식별력있는 상표라고 인정할 수 없다.

(a) Articles 8 and 2 of the Trademark Act; Article 8(1)6 of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Hu33 delivered on January 24, 1984

[Defendant-Appellant] Hahsan High School, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellant and two others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 164 decided August 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

Each ground for appeal by the applicant's attorney (including the supplementary ground for appeal by the patent attorney Park Young-dae and Dong Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The term "trademark" means a special mark, letter, figure, or combination thereof used by a person who produces, manufactures, processes, certifies, or sells goods as his business to distinguish his goods from the goods of another person. The purpose of the Trademark Act is to contribute to the development of the national industry and to protect the interests of consumers by maintaining the business reputation of a trademark user by protecting such trademark, thereby contributing to the development of the national industry and at the same time protecting the interests of consumers. The special distinctive character here is generally interpreted as indicating the distinctive character of the goods of a trader or the source of the goods in light of the provisions of Article 8 of the Trademark Act. Thus, in a trademark combining diagrams and letters, the trademark shall not be based solely on its appearance, name, concept, etc., but shall be determined by considering the existence of distinctive character of the goods of another person in the trade, and whether ordinary traders or consumers can recognize the origin of the goods by the trademark.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, this original trademark is a combination trademark of figures and letters written in the same pattern as above, "the figure is a simple and sealed trademark, and "the figure is marked as the first person of the lease," and the word written below is a mark with the same concept as the trademark "the trademark is marked as the first person of the lease," so it cannot be seen as a simple and sealed trademark at the time of examining the original trademark as a whole, and it cannot be recognized as a trademark with the distinctive character of the goods of the ordinary consumers or traders, and it is recognized that the original trademark cannot be seen as a trademark with the distinctive character of the goods of the other goods, and the court below's determination and determination are acceptable by examining the original trademark as a result of the records, or the trademark similar to the original trademark is registered, or the applicant's registration of the trademark in this case cannot be seen as a trademark with the same meaning as the original trademark in this case as the original trademark in this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as the original trademark in this case.

2. The court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that there is a special apparentness by the use of Article 8 (2) of the Trademark Act of the applicant is not a defect of the court below's determination on the above argument of the appellant, which is not a simple and insufficient error in the determination of the appellant's above argument, on the ground that "other appellant's assertion is not affected by this case's trial decision." However, it cannot be viewed that there was a new determination of involvement, and even if considering the records, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff could have clearly known that the trademark was the applicant's trademark as a result of the use of this case's trademark in light of the actual transaction situation at the time of the quality, the court below did not affect the decision of the court below, even if there was a omission of determination. There is no error

3. 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 Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)