[1] Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether the combined trademark of letters and diagrams is named and conceptualally understood as a part of the letter (affirmative with qualification)

[3] Whether each of the designated goods is similar to the trademark " "TINT" (affirmative)

[1] Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined by examining two trademarks used for the same kind of product in terms of the appearance, name, and concept of the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark and determining whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the quality or origin of the goods in trade at any time. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible for consumers to clearly avoid misconception or confusion as to the quality or origin, it shall not be deemed similar. However, even if there are different parts, if the appearance, name, or concept is similar, it shall be deemed that the overall consumer is easily mistaken or confused as a whole.

[2] A trademark consisting of letters and diagrams is generally named and conceptualized as a part of text, unless the figure portion is unique and can derive any name or concept by itself.

[3] In comparison with the applied trademark "TINT" and the cited trademark "", 5 square meters, which are the part of the trademark applied for registration, are unique or unique, and thus, can derive any name or concept in itself, so the term "Net" among the two trademarks is simple and ordinary terms as the word "goods, network, communication network, computer network, etc.", and as well as the applied part of the "TN" under Article 6 (1) [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Industry and Economy No. 83 of February 23, 1998), which is the designated goods of both trademarks, is the same as the "TNT", "UINT", "PENT", or "NE", which is the part of the trademark applied for registration of the "TNT" as a whole, and thus, it is hard to recognize that the trademark falls under the above "TNNT" or the remaining part of the "NE", which is the part of the designated goods so cited.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [3] Articles 7 (1) 7 and 8 (1) of the Trademark Act, Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Industry and Industry No. 83 of February 23, 1998)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1623 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2501), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu311 delivered on October 8, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2327) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1692 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1406), Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2026 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 176), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2382 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1787) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu1969 delivered on June 1969, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1787)

Do-transfer Telecom Ba-Nel (Patent Attorney Park Jong-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 99Heo2112 delivered on May 27, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined by whether there is a concern for misconception or confusion as to the quality or origin of goods in trade, even in any one of the two trademarks used for the same kind of goods, in terms of their external appearance, name, and concept. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible for consumers to clearly avoid misconception or confusion as to the quality or origin, it shall not be deemed similar. However, even if there are different parts, if the external appearance, name, or concept is similar, it shall be similar if it is difficult for general consumers to mistake or confuse as a whole due to similar external appearance, name, or concept (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu1692, Apr. 9, 196; 95Hu1623, Jul. 12, 1996; 95Hu1623, Jul. 12, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") and the cited trademark "TINE" are similar to the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark of this case"), five grammatic forms, which are different from those of the original trademark, are not unique or can derive any name or concept in itself, and thus, the term "Net" in both parts is simple and common terms, and it is not only the designated goods of this case, but also the designated goods of the former Trademark Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Industry and Economy No. 83 of February 23, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) which are similar to the trademark of this case, since the trademark of this case, which is one of the original trademark, is recognized as identical to the trademark of this case, and the trademark of this case, which is one of the original trademark, is not a combination of "TNT" (hereinafter referred to as "standard No. 1") or "NNTNM" (hereinafter referred to as "NTNTM")'s").

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks as alleged by the appellant and the distinctiveness of trademarks, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Supreme Court precedents delivered in the ground of appeal are not appropriate to be invoked as it is in this case, unlike the case.

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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)