[1] The criteria for determining the similarity of trademarks, and whether the trademark can be deemed as a similar trademark in cases where there is a similar part between the trademarks compared thereto, but there is little possibility that the trademark may be separate and discount, or where it is clearly possible to avoid confusion of sources when the overall observation is made (negative)

[2] The case holding that even if the registered trademark " " and the registered trademark " " are used for the same or similar goods, they are not similar to each other on the grounds that there is no possibility that ordinary consumers or traders may mislead or confuse the place of origin of the goods

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu2908 Decided August 25, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1637) Supreme Court Decision 2008Hu1739 Decided September 11, 2008

Original temperature Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Byung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Lawing System and Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Lee Ho-he et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo5264 Decided October 28, 2009

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined depending on whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of the designated goods by observing the external appearance, name, and concept objectively, as a whole, and separately, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark in the transaction of the designated goods. Thus, even if there is a similar part between the compared trademarks, if it is unlikely that the part alone may be separated or recognizable, or if it is possible to clearly avoid confusion of the source when the overall observation is conducted, it shall not be deemed a similar trademark (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Hu2908, Aug. 25, 2006; 2008Hu1739, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.).

2. In light of the above legal principles and the records, we examine whether the registered trademark of this case (registration number No. 743056) and the registered trademark of this case (registration number No. 743056) consisting of “non-medical strawings, cand, non-medical strings, non-medical strings, strings, and strings,” “non-medical strings, strings, strings, and strings,” etc. are similar to the registered trademark (registration number No. 32355) consisting of “”.

Compared to the fact that the registered trademark of this case consists of eight texts in Korean language, the prior registered trademark consists of seven texts in English, so its appearance is significantly different. Furthermore, the trademark of this case is composed of a combination of fishing gear, i.e., “project” and “good” in its front. However, considering the language customs and English level in Korea, the term “project” is recognized as a single word with the word “○ Plan” and “○○ Agenda” combined with the word or fishing gear ordinarily emitted in front of the general consumers or traders, and thus, it does not have any special distinctive character compared with the word “project” in relation to the designated product. Thus, it is natural to view that the term “project” as a whole, rather than as the word “project” and “project” in its rear part, is identical to the word “project”, and thus, the concept or concept of the registered trademark of this case is not identical to that of the general consumers, but is not identical to the word “project” and thus, it is not identical to the concept of the registered trademark of this case.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of similarity of trademarks, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)