[1] Criteria for determining similarity of combined trademarks

[2] The case holding that both trademarks are similar inasmuch as the name and concept are identical or similar in the case where the name and concept of the name and the concept of the two North Koreas are identical in the case where the figure of the two North Koreas is combined with that of the Korean language and the shape of the two North Koreas

[1] Whether the trademark similaritys two trademarks should be determined by whether there is concern for mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark as to the origin of the goods. The combined trademark combining each constituent element of letters, letters, or figures is not necessarily a name and concept by the entire constituent part, but a combination of each constituent part is not an integral combination with each constituent part to the extent that it is deemed natural in the trade, if the separate observation of each constituent part is not an integral combination to the extent that it is not natural in the trade. In addition, if two or more names or concepts can be thought from one trademark, if one of them is deemed identical or similar to another's trademark, the two trademarks are similar.

[2] The case holding that the two trademarks are similar inasmuch as their names and concepts are identical or similar in the case where the name and concept of the two North Koreas are identical in the case where the shape of the Korean and the two North Koreas are combined with the figure of the two North Koreas in the form of "the figure of the two North Korea"

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1466 delivered on December 2, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 495), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1824 delivered on May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2124), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 553)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Yang Yong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2003Heo892 delivered on July 3, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The court below determined that the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 2 omitted) is a trademark combining the two North Korea's figures and the two North Korea's figures, so it can be said that the trademark of this case (registration No. 1 omitted) is a combination of the two North Korea's figures and the two North Korea's word "non-distinctive marks" as "non-distinctive marks" (registration No. 2 omitted), and that the registered trademark of this case (registration No. 2 omitted) is a combination of the three parts such as the word "prokes" and the word "protrudings" as "protrudings" and "protrudings" as an advertisement, and thus, it cannot be said that the two parts of the registered trademark cannot be seen as a combination of the two North Korea's word "protrudings" or "protrudings" as an advertisement, and thus, it cannot be said that the trademark of this case is a combination of two North Korea's word "protrudings" or "protrudings" as part of the registered trademark.

2. Whether the trademark is similar or not shall be determined by whether there is a concern for mistake or confusion as to the origin of the goods by objectively, comprehensively, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of the two trademarks and observing them in a separate manner, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark with respect to the trademark. The combined trademark combining each constituent element of letters, letters, or figures is not necessarily a name or concept by the entire constituent part, but a combination of each constituent part, unless it is an indivisible combination to the degree that it is deemed natural in the transaction if the separate observation of each constituent part is made, it may be a simple name, concept by only a part of the constituent part. In addition, if it is possible to think of two or more names or concepts from one trademark, if it is deemed that one of them is identical or similar to another's trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1395 delivered on December 22, 195, 195).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks as otherwise alleged in the ground

On the other hand, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different and inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)