The case holding that it is difficult to regard the trademark as being similar to the cited trademark's "RPa + Madro figure" as a trademark which is likely to deceive consumers.

The case holding that if the appearance, name, and concept of a trademark is observed in a whole, objective, and separately, it is difficult to view that the trademark "RPa + Matan figure of a person who is a horse is likely to mislead or confuse consumers by misunderstanding or confusion about the cited trademark "sporo figure" and the source of goods.

Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 200Hu1481 Decided November 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 208) Supreme Court Decision 99Hu772 Decided December 27, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu1450 Decided December 27, 2001

Raphol Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Han-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

(q) Portro/Lenecom, L/P (Attorneys Jeon Sung-min et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 98Heo9628 delivered on February 26, 1999

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the registered trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case are similar in terms of the name or concept of "RPa" and the name or concept of "the figure of the end person" are similar, since ordinary consumers or traders can separately observe each part of the registered trademark of this case because it is not a combination of characters and diagrams to the extent that they create new concepts or meanings, and it is possible to separate and observe the cited trademark 1 as well as the cited trademark 1 is possible to separate and observe the cited trademark 1, and it is difficult to see that the figure portion of the registered trademark of this case is similar to the cited trademark 1's figure portion or the cited trademark 2's figure, but it is similar in terms of the name or concept of "the end person" as "the person" and the cited trademark of this case are similar in terms of overall, objective, and comparative observation, and thus it is difficult for ordinary consumers or traders to recognize the source or origin of the trademark of this case by citing it from the cited trademark of this case.

2. However, according to the records, the figure of the trademark of this case is common point with the cited trademark in that the person takes a horse, but there is a difference between the horses and people's specific form, and the cited trademark of this case is stringing enormous body for strings with the rear side, compared to the fact that the horse strings the horses, while the cited trademark of this case strings dynamic, flat and friendly expressions, it cannot be deemed as similar to the appearance of the trademark of this case, because the figure of the cited trademark of this case and the cited trademark of this case are different from the figure of the cited trademark of this case, and it is difficult to say that the figure of the cited trademark of this case has a name of natural heading, and thus, it is difficult to see that the figure of the cited trademark of this case is referred to as a "trademark that is becoming a trademark that is raised by the word part," and it is difficult to see that the trademark of this case is a trademark of this case as a trademark of this case, and that it is referred to as a trademark of this case's no specific trademark of 2.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the registered trademark of this case could only mislead consumers. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 7 (1) 11 of the Trademark Act. Thus, the plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)