[1] The case holding that two trademarks composed of diagrams are not similar

[2] Criteria for determining a trademark inconsistent with a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act

[1] Examining the similarity of the cited trademark (1) registered in an earlier application with the registered trademark, the two trademarks themselves are all unable to think of a particular concept or name from their own, so they must be compared with the appearance in terms of appearance. The cited trademark consists of the shapes of ‘C' in the outer original part, opposite each other, and consists of two shapes of the two shapes of the two shapes of the two parts that are reduced, and the trademark consists of two lines of the two parts of the two parts of the two parts, and it cannot be concluded that the dominant impression that the appearance of the two parts of the two parts of the two parts of the two parts is similar even if observed in the whole and on a different basis, and thus, both trademarks are not similar.

[2] In comparison with a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, even if a trademark itself cannot be deemed as a similar trademark, a trademark may not be registered in cases where it is deemed that the trademark is easily connected with another person's well-known trademark, goods, etc., or is closely related to another person's trademark, goods, etc., or causes misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods, compared with the composition, concept,

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu195 delivered on October 11, 1996 (the same purport) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Hu1370 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1299) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu576 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3786), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu173 delivered on February 13, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 958)

샤넬 (소송대리인 변호사 김진억 외 6인)

Appellant (Patent Attorney Kim Byung-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94 No. 94 dated November 30, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the claimant.

The grounds of appeal by the claimant are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. According to the record, examining the similarity between the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) and the cited trademark (1) (1) (2 omitted), since both trademarks themselves cannot think of a particular concept or name from their own, they must be compared in terms of appearance. Thus, the cited trademark (1) consists of the shapes of "C" in the outer original part by cross-sectioning the shapes of the "C" into the opposite one. However, the trademark of this case is composed of two shapes of the two shapes of the reduced two two shapes of the registered trademark of this case, which are composed of two lines of two lines of the other parts, and part of the side of the right and the other part cannot be readily concluded as similar even if the overall and external observation is conducted, and thus, both trademarks are not similar.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, such as theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation. In addition, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined individually according to each trademark, and the trademark similar to the trademark of this case is not attributable to the result of the determination of other trademarks, and even if the rejection ruling against the trademark of this case has become final and conclusive on the ground that the trademark of this case similar to the trademark of this case is similar to the cited trademark (1), such circumstance alone does not constitute an error in the court below’s determination

B. In comparison with a well-known trademark under Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act, even if the trademark itself cannot be deemed a similar trademark by itself, compared with the composition, concept, etc. of the two trademarks, if it is deemed that the trademark is easily connected with another person's well-known trademark, goods, etc. or it is closely related to another person's trademark, goods, etc. and thus causes mistake or confusion as to the origin of goods, it shall not be registered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Hu1370, Mar. 23, 1993; 95Hu576, Oct. 12, 195; 95Hu173, Feb. 13, 1996).

However, according to the records, the trademark of this case or the cited trademark (1) is a relatively simple figure, and it cannot be deemed as a similar trademark as seen earlier, and furthermore, compared with its composition, etc., it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case is easily connected with the well-known trademark (1) or that it is closely related to the cited trademark (1) or the goods, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the trademark of this case is registered in violation of Article 7 (1) 10 of the Trademark Act.

Although the reasoning of the decision of the court below is insufficient, the conclusion of the court below that the registered trademark of this case is not registered as a violation of the above provision of the trademark law with respect to well-known trademarks is justifiable, and therefore there is no reason

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, on January 29, 191, prior to the filing of the application for the trademark of this case, the respondent filed an application for the cited trademark (2) on January 17, 1992 using documents, bags, handbags, etc. classified as the designated goods of the category No. 25 of goods like the designated goods of the trademark of this case as the designated goods, and completed the registration (3 omitted) on January 17, 1992. After the application for the cited trademark (2) and then re-application for the trademark of this case as an independent trademark other than the combined trademark (2). However, in comparison with the cited trademark of this case, both trademarks cannot be viewed as a trademark with a figure alone and cannot be seen as a similar trademark, and thus, the registered trademark of this case does not constitute a case where they are registered as an associated trademark as provided in Article 11(1) of the Trademark Act.

Therefore, the court below's failure to deliberate and decide on the claimant's assertion that the registered trademark of this case was invalid because it was in violation of the provisions of the Joint Trademark Act is erroneous. However, the court below's error did not have affected the result of the trial decision. Thus, there is no reason to interpret this.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)