A. Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

(b) Whether “a cited mark” is similar to “a cited mark” (affirmative)

C. Whether an essential part must be similar in comparison with the similarity between the original trademark and the associated trademark (negative)

A. Whether a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether two trademarks used for the same kind of product are likely to be mistaken for trade or confused through objective, overall, and different observations in terms of appearance, name, and concept in terms of appearance, appearance, and concept, and even if there are different parts between the trademarks, it is similar to those which form the essential part and are likely to cause confusions from the overall observation.

B. In comparison with the trademark of this case and the cited mark, the trademark of this case is composed of the figure in the shape of Crobaf and the figure in the shape of Crobaf and the figure in the shape of “LUCHY” in addition to the national word “Bul”, and the cited mark consists of the figure in the shape of Crobaf leaves and the figure in the shape of “LUCHY” without any figure in the shape of Crobaf leaves and there is a difference in part in appearance, but when the two trademarks are observed in the whole and in a separate manner, it is difficult to see that “Bul” or “Bulul” is an essential part in the concept, and even in the name of the trademark of this case, there is no figure or English person in the shape of the cited mark, and there is no different part between the figures in the shape of “LUCHYY” and the two trademarks are identical to those in the shape of the cited mark, and if they are identical and similar to the concept of the cited mark to the extent of confusion as a whole.

C. There is no reason to conclude that the similarity between the original trademark and the associated trademark should necessarily be an essential part in order to protect the trademark and prevent disputes over similar trademarks in an unfolded manner.

(a)Article 9(1)7(c) of the Trademark Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Hu47 Delivered on December 27, 1983

juk Co., Ltd.

Pacific Chemical Industry Corporation

Korean Intellectual Property Office's appellate trial decision (Law No. 42) No. 1980, Jun. 20, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 5

Whether or not a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether or not two trademarks used for the same kind of product are identical in terms of objective, overall, and apart from three aspects of appearance, name, and concept, and whether or not there is a possibility of confusion or confusion in trade. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, the parts constituting the trademark are similar to those which would be easily confused in the overall observation. Thus, in comparison with the mark (a) of this case, the registered trademark of this case is in the form of crobbbal shape and the English text of “LUCHY” besides the national text of “lUCHY” and (a) the mark consists of two trademarks used for the same kind of product, consisting solely of the word “lUCHY” or the word “lUCHY”, and it is difficult for the court below to see that there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the two trademarks as well as the word “lives” or “lives” or “lives” or “lives”, and there are no errors in the word or appearance of the mark in English.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

Examining the records of the case, although the original adjudication is somewhat inappropriate in its expression and judgment, the phrase “ulul” is used as a designated product marking such as Bulululul, etc., and the title of the trademark of this case can be called as “LUCHY” with “LUCHY” with “LUCHY” with “LUCHYY” with “LUCHY” with “LUCHYY”, etc., it is evident that the decision is made on the assertion that the name of the trademark of this case may be called as “LUCHYY” with “LUCHYY” with “LUCHYY” with “LUCHY” with no argument against the principle of pleading in the original trial decision.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

The so-called "allied trademark" under Article 12 of the Trademark Act is a trademark similar to a trademark, the owner of a trademark right or the applicant of a trademark registration has filed an application for registration, and whose registration is permitted only to be used for goods classified as the designated goods, and which are similar to those of the designated goods, and such combined trademark is to protect the trademark and prevent disputes as to similar trademarks. Therefore, there is no reason that the similarity between the original trademark and the associated trademark should be an essential part, and therefore, the trademark of this case and the associated trademark of this case cannot be adopted as an independent opinion that it is against the rules of evidence in comparison with the mark of this case, since the trademark of this case and the associated trademark of this case are similar to the trademark of which the owner of a trademark right or the applicant of a trademark has filed an application for registration.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)