Whether the registered trademark and the mark [mark] are similar to the trademark]

Although the trademark is different from the registered trademark [registered trademark] and the table of (a) are different from the appearance of the trademark, if the two trademarks are identical to each other in terms of the name or concept, and if they are used in the same manner as the goods identical or similar to the identical or similar goods, it would cause general consumers or consumers to misunderstand or confuse the origin of the goods, the mark of (a) is similar to the registered trademark and falls under the scope of the right of the registered trademark.

Articles 23 and 36 of the Trademark Act

Patent Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 87Da1256 dated July 28, 1989

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the respondent.

1. 원심은 다음과 같은 요지의 이유로 심판청구인의 청구를 인용하였다. 즉 피심판청구인의 등록상표인 (이 뒤에는 "이 사건 등록상표" 라고 약칭한다)와 심판청구인이 사용하고 있는 미등록표장인 (이 뒤에는 "(가)호 표장"이라고 약칭한다)을 대비하여 볼 때, 그 외관에 있어서 문자부분인"닭표국수"와 "닭곰국수"가 종서된 점이 비슷하기도 하나 상단에 있는 도형이 현저히 다르므로 유사하지 않고, 그 칭호에 있어서도 이 사건 등록상표는 "닭표"로 불리어지는데 반하여 (가)호 표장은 "닭곰표"로 불리어져 닭이라는 공통점이 있기는 하나 수요자의 오인. 혼동을 일으킬 정도로 유사하지 않고, 그 관념에 있어서도 이 사건 등록상표는 "닭"만을 뜻하고 (가)호 표장은 "닭"과 "곰"을 뜻하는 것이어서 "닭"이라는 공통된 관념이 있기는 하나 수요자의 오인·혼동을 일으킬 정도로 유사하다고 할 수 없으므로, 위 두상표는 서로 유사하지 않아 (가)호 표장은 이 사건 등록상표의 권리범위에 속하지 않는 것이라고 판단하였다.

2. However, whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar should be determined depending on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods in light of the common sense of trade by observing objectively, comprehensively, and separately from the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in terms of its appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, it should be deemed as similar trademarks that may cause misconception or confusion when comprehensively observing the parts constituting the trademark as a whole.

However, in comparison with the registered trademark of this case and the (a) mark, there are differences between the two trademarks, but in comparison with the "weck" and the "weck", one of the main parts of the trademark of this case, which is the main parts of the trademark of this case, the two trademarks are identical in their names and concepts, and if two trademarks are used in the same or similar goods as identical or similar goods, they may cause misconception or confusion as to the origin of goods. Thus, (a) marks are similar to the registered trademark of this case, and are deemed to fall under the scope of the right of the registered trademark of this case.

3. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the two trademarks are not similar to each other without observing in preparation for the essential parts of the registered trademark of this case and the mark (A) does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered trademark of this case. Thus, the original decision does not contain any error of law in failing to properly examine the similarity of trademarks, and it is obvious that such illegality has an effect on the trial decision, and therefore, the original decision cannot be dismissed.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)