(a) whether the name, concept or title of one part of a trademark consisting of two or more essential parts is identical or similar to that of another trademark;

B. Whether the original trademark is similar to the cited trademark

(a)A trademark, wheneverever, does not necessarily mean the name, concept, and each constituent part, but is not necessarily an integral combination so far as it is not considered natural even if it is separately observed by dividing and observing each constituent part, may be briefly named, conceptual, or conceptualized by only that part of the constituent part, and two or more titles or concepts may arise from a single trademark; and as such, if it is possible to think of two or more names, definitions, and concepts from one trademark, one of them should be deemed identical or similar to that of another's trademark, then two trademarks should be similar;

B. Since the main trademark consists of two different parts, one of the essential parts of the main trademark and one of the cited trademarks described only in Korean as the cited trademark, in comparison with the cited trademarks described only in the original trademark, one of the two essential parts of the original trademark is identical in full, and one of the two parts of the original trademark is similar in appearance, name, and concept to the extent that ordinary consumers are likely to mislead and confuse the origin of goods in the general trade society where goods are used for the same kind of goods at the time of examination in full and in a different way.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 751 dated August 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether or not a trademark is similar to each other, it is necessary to determine whether or not there is a possibility of misunderstanding or confusion between each of the goods in a trade after objectively, entirely or separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used for the same kind of goods. However, the trademark is not necessarily a name or concept, but it cannot be seen that there is an integral combination with each of its constituent parts to the extent that it is natural even if it is separately observed, it can be briefly named or conceptualized by only one of its constituent parts, and it can be said that two or more trademarks are identical from one trademark to one of its constituent parts, and if it is inappropriate to think that two or more trademarks are identical or similar to those of another's trademark at the time of using the same time as the trademark at the time of using the same time as the trademark at the time of using two or more trademarks as the trademark at the time of using the same time as the trademark at the time of using the same time as the trademark at the time of using two or more trademarks as the trademark at the same time. According to the reasoning of the court below, one of the two trademarks as the above is similar.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)