The case holding that the trademark "E" and "MICTRO LIVOME" are not similar to each other, because they are different from the other.

The case holding that when comparing the applied trademark "FE" and the cited trademark "MIVE" registered in the earlier application, both trademarks are all combined trademarks of letters and letters, which do not create a new concept due to the combination of each word, and since it is difficult to view that there is a combination of two separate and observation so that it does not naturally be natural, it can be separately observed in each part, and it is recognized as "all" of the applied trademark as "all" of the English characters, and this is a form of a widely used word "micro," so its distinctive character is lacking, and therefore, its part is widely used, and since the term " Micro," among the cited trademark, is also widely used, and the word "BE" is a word, and thus, its distinctive character is insufficient, and thus, it is not a "BEE", and thus, it is not a combination of the designated goods, and even if it is not a combination of the designated goods, it is not a combination of the designated goods, it is not a case that there is no possibility of confusion among general consumers as to the designated goods.

Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1919 delivered on August 12, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2303) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1404) Supreme Court Decision 96Hu511 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3444)

UNNBB (Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 95Na1591 dated October 28, 1996

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the original trademark") and the cited trademark "MICTRO LIVOE" (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark "" 188065, Feb. 2, 1990) are different from each other, but the original trademark "the original trademark" is recognized as "the original trademark" in English, the meaning of "the original trademark" as "the original trademark" and "the original trademark" as "the original trademark is used as microfics" and "the essential part of the original trademark is "the main trademark" as "the microfics", and it is highly likely that the original trademark will be referred to as "the main trademark" as "the main trademark of this case, which is similar to those of the original trademark" and "the original trademark will be referred to as "the main trademark" as "the main trademark of this case, which is similar to those of the original trademark, and it is highly likely that it will be referred to as "the whole trademark "the original trademark" as "the original trademark" as "the main trademark" or the whole trademark.

In light of records and relevant laws and regulations, the above two trademarks are all the combined trademarks of letters and letters, which do not create a new concept due to the combination of each part, and since it is difficult to see that there is a combination of two different characters to the extent that it is natural if they are separately observed, each part of the original trademark can be separated and observed in each part, and it can be recognized as a "all" of the original trademark as a "all" and "all" of the original trademark. Since it is a form of a widely used trademark that enables a "microro" to be widely used, its distinctive character is lacking, so its essential part is a general term, and the " Microro" among the cited trademarks is also a widely used word, and its essential part is "Rab", and therefore, the cited trademark is not an " microro", not an essential part. Therefore, the cited trademark cannot be abbreviated.

Thus, the above two trademarks are different from each other, and they are not similar to each other in terms of the general consumers, so even if they are used for the same designated goods of the same kind, there is no possibility of misconception and confusion as to the origin of the goods.

Nevertheless, the original trademark and the original trademark are likely to be mistaken or confused as to the source of goods in such a case on the premise that the cited trademark is abbreviationd into microf, and the original trademark are likely to be mistaken or confused. In so doing, the original trademark and the original trademark are erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on determining the similarity of trademarks, thereby affecting the conclusion of the decision.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)