A. Whether the applied trademark “SPID” and the cited trademark “SPID-MN” are similar

(b) The effect of a final and conclusive trial decision that is not similar to another person's trademark on the determination of similarity between a combined trademark and that of another person's trademark

(a) “SPDER” and “SPDD-MN”, a trademark applied for registration, are similar in terms of name, appearance, and concept. In designated goods, similar trademarks are similar trademarks that may cause mistake and confusion as to the source of goods, as they are designated by the same kind of goods, such as “Sweg” in Chapter 45.

B. Since the combined trademark is an independent trademark, whether it is similar to another person's trademark should be determined regardless of the basic trademark. Therefore, in a case of a trial for invalidation of registration filed on the basic trademark of the applied trademark which is the combined trademark, there was a final and conclusive decision that the basic trademark was not similar to the cited trademark, and it cannot be a ground for determination of similarity between the applied trademark which is the combined trademark and the cited trademark.

(a) Article 7(1)7(b) of the Trademark Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1205 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,691) 91Hu1465 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992,1307) 93Hu466 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993,2301) (Gong1227 delivered on June 11, 1964) 74Hu48 delivered on October 8, 1974 (Gong1974,8064) 89Hu1370 delivered on June 12, 190 (Gong190,1472)

Patent Attorney Shin-deok, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 92Na669 dated June 30, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark "SPID" and the cited trademark "SPID-N" are identical so long as they are identical to the original trademark "SPID" and the original trademark "SPID", the cited trademark is unfavorable to "SPID", and the cited trademark is identical to those of the cited trademark "SPID" and its name is similar to that of the original trademark, and the cited trademark is connected to "SPID" and the cited trademark is open (-) and thus, it is not appropriate for the court below to see that the trademark "SPID" and the cited trademark is similar to those of the original trademark, and thus, it is not appropriate for the court below to see that the above parts are identical to those of the original trademark "SPDA" and thus, the trademark "N" are similar to those of the original trademark "N" and thus, the above parts are identical to those of the original trademark "N" and thus, it is reasonable to see that the above parts are identical to those of the original trademark "D-I" and similar to those of the original trademark "N".

In addition, since the combined trademark is an independent trademark, it shall be determined without relation to the basic trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 63Hu27, Jun. 11, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 74Hu48, Oct. 8, 1974). Thus, in a case of a request for registration invalidation trial filed with respect to the basic trademark of the original trademark which is the combined trademark, the basic trademark cannot be determined in determining the similarity between the original trademark which is the combined trademark and the cited trademark, on the ground that there was a final decision that the basic trademark is not similar to the cited trademark of this case. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)