(a) Whether the “Madpan -, MAXIN-A” can be separately observed as “Madpan”;

B. Whether the trademark "at the time of comparison" and "MaXYIN-A" are similar.

A. The term “Mapan -, MaXPAIN-A” is a combination trademark composed of two characters, namely, a combination trademark consisting of two parts, and each part is separated from appearance, and these parts are not connected in a special sense, and it cannot be said that new concepts have been produced by their combinations. Thus, it cannot be deemed that separate observation of each constituent part is a combination of non-natural smokes so that it can not be deemed that it is a combination of non-natural smokes. Therefore, it can be separately observed.

B. Examining the similarity between Mapan-in and the cited trademark (registration number omitted) registered by the earlier application, the two trademarks are different from each other, and they are not similar in terms of concept since both trademarks are different, it is not similar in terms of concept. However, if the cited trademark is separated and protected by the cited trademark, the cited trademark can be referred to as "Machpan", and if the cited trademark is referred to as a "Machpan", both trademarks are identical in terms of three degrees and are generally perceived, and the two trademarks are identical in terms of the first two degrees, and they are identical in terms of the last sound, and they are identical in terms of the same kind, and they are deemed similar in terms of the name, as a whole, to be similar in terms of the name, where both trademarks are used as the designated goods of the same kind, such as medicines for circulation, etc., and thus, it is likely to cause confusion and confusion between general consumers and consumers.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Hu678 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong1995Ha, 678) 95Hu200 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2274), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu200 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2398), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu446 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 258), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu439 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2809) (Gong195Ha, 3535)

breTolu-Mab Squib Cambodia, Attorney Yellow-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na1991 delivered on February 27, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the records, the cited trademark (registration number omitted) registered by the earlier application and MaXYPAIN-A is similar in terms of concept, both trademarks are different from each other, and they are not similar in terms of concept. However, the cited trademark is a combination trademark composed of two characters, and it cannot be said that there is no special connection with each other, and that there is no new concept through their combination, and it can not be said that separate observation of each constituent part is combined with natural mispers, so it can be separately observed, and the quoted trademark can be referred to as "consty". If the quoted trademark is separated and referred to as such, two trademarks are all divided into three trademarks, and they are generally perceived and similar in terms of goods, and it is recognized that there is a concern that the cited trademark is identical and similar to the first one in terms of goods, such as the first one in terms of goods, and the first two in terms of the first two in terms of goods, which are identical and similar to the first two in terms of the first two in terms of the first two in terms of goods.

In the above purport, the decision of the court below that rejected the registration of the original trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of judgment in violation of the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment in violation of the rules of evidence, and the similarity of trademarks. The cases cited in the grounds of appeal are different from those of this case, and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case. All of the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)