In a case where Gap corporation holding the right to registered trademark " " " Eul corporation holding the right to registered trademark " " filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against Eul corporation holding the right to registered trademark " " on the ground that the registered trademark falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that both trademarks

In a case where Gap corporation holding the right to registered trademark " " " " filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against Eul corporation holding the right to registered trademark " " " " " on the ground that the registered trademark falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, on the grounds that the two trademarks are different in appearance and name, but they cannot be deemed to have reached the degree of suppressing the similarity of ideas, and thus, if the two trademarks are used together on the designated goods identical or similar to the same and similar concept, they may cause mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods, even though both trademarks are similar to each other.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Amomoth Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Cheong-dam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Western Trade Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Jeong-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 201Heo6338 Decided October 7, 2011

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by whether the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark is likely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of goods by observing the overall, objective, and separation from the standpoint of ordinary consumers or traders. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible to avoid mistake or confusion as to the source clearly based on the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with the trademark, it shall not be deemed similar, but if it is easy to mislead or confuse ordinary consumers or traders as to the origin because of a similar title or concept, it shall be deemed as similar trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1096, Apr. 25, 2000).

2. In light of the above legal principles and records, the registered trademark “” (No. 773614) and “registered trademark” are similar in that they common use only one word, but the registered trademark of this case is added by one word “her,” and its overall appearance differs from one another as the word “nitation” is somewhat different. In addition, the registered trademark of this case is called “nitation” as the word “nitation,” while the name is also called “nitation,” the trademark of this case is also distinguishable from the word “nitation,” so it is widely known that there is no possibility that the trademark of this case is similar in terms of “nitation,” “nitation,” “nitation,” “nitation,” and “nit is difficult for consumers to easily understand the trademark of this case as the word “nitation,” “nitation,” and “nitized,” “nit is difficult to see the trademark of this case as the word “nitation,” and thus, it can be seen that it can be combined with “gration,” as it.

Nevertheless, on the premise that the registered trademark of this case does not have a special concept as a trademark, the court below held that both trademarks are not identical or similar because they are unlikely to cause mistake or confusion as to the source of goods as a whole because they are different from the overall appearance and names of marks, and their concepts cannot be compared. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on determining the similarity of trademarks, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)