The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

1. Whether a trademark is similar to the ground of appeal No. 1 should be determined by whether there is a concern for misconceptions or confusions in trade by observing the compared trademark objectively, as a whole in terms of appearance, name, and concept in terms of appearance, name, and concept, and considering whether there is a concern for misconceptions or confusions in trade. In particular, if the appearance of the figure trademarks is identical or similar and if the two trademarks are used for the same kind of product, if there is a concern for misconceptions or confusions in the origin of the product, both trademarks should be deemed similar.

In addition, the determination of similarity of trademarks shall not be compared to two trademarks per se, but shall be made from the perspective of whether the traders or ordinary consumers representing two trademarks differently and at the same time and place are likely to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods. Two trademarks are similar in cases where there is concern for misconception or confusion as to the origin of the goods in full view of their appearance, name, concept, etc., as a whole, of the impression, memory, memory, etc. offered to traders or ordinary consumers by using their appearance, name, concept, etc.

(See Supreme Court Order 2006Ma805 Decided February 26, 2007. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, each figure constituting the Defendant’s original trademark in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “Defendant mark”) at the time of the Defendant’s original adjudication, such as “,” is considered as a hub, and the diagrams similar to each figure constituting the Defendant’s trademark in attached Form 1 (registration No. 330235; hereinafter “instant registered trademark”) at the time of the Defendant’s original adjudication, are very similar to the overall composition, arrangement, and expression methods. Thus, the Defendant mark and the instant registered trademark are likely to cause confusion among ordinary consumers.