(a) Criteria for determining similarity of trademarks;

(b)whether the application trademark is similar to the application trademark (affirmative);

(a)The similarity of a trademark should be determined by whether there is concern of mistake or confusion as to the origin of the trademark by ordinary consumers or traders on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel the trademark, after objectively, overall, and separately observing the appearance, name, and concept of two trademarks used in the same or similar goods, and at all times, if it is not always called or conceptualized by the name of the entire constituent part, but it cannot be seen that separate observation of each constituent part is inseparably indivisible to such a degree that it is not natural in the trade, it may be called or conceptualized by only a part of the constituent part, and two or more names or concepts may occur in a single trademark. Thus, if it is recognized that one of such simplified names or concepts or several names or concepts is identical or similar to the trademark of another person, it shall be deemed similar.

B. The applied trademark is a character trademark marked in Korean characters, and the cited trademark is a combination of two trademarks, such as diagrams, Romans, and Korean characters, and there are no two trademarks, which differs in appearance, but the applied trademark refers to "Sain Andre's Korean characters," and the applied trademark refers to "Sain" as "Sain Andre," and if the name is expressed, the applied trademark is named and conceptualized as "ved," and the cited trademark cannot be seen as being combined with "Andre" and "Irre" as "Irre or "Irre" and thus both trademarks are referred to as "Irre" and concept, and if both trademarks are used in the same or similar goods within the scope of "Sarre" and they are used in the same or similar goods, they cause confusion between two general consumers and consumers.

Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1093 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1288) 91Hu608 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2624) 91Hu1786 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1726)

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office on January 31, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

The grounds for appeal by the applicant shall be examined.

Whether a trademark is similar or not shall be determined depending on whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion as to the origin of a product by ordinary consumers or traders on the basis of an objective, overall, and comparative observation of the appearance, name, and concept, etc. of two trademarks used in the same or similar product, and on the basis of a direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel with respect to the trademark. In cases where at all times it cannot be seen that separate observation of each constituent part is indivisible to the extent that it is not natural in the trade, it can be briefly referred or conceptualized by only a part of the constituent part, and two or more names or concepts may arise from a single trademark, and where it is deemed that one name or concept among such simple names, concepts, or various names or concepts is identical or similar to another person's trademark (see Supreme Court Decision 9Hu1698 delivered on September 24, 191; 9Hu16989 delivered on September 198, 199; 2.).

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the original trademark is a character trademark marked in the Korean language, and the cited trademark is combined with the figure, Roman and Korean language (gin), and there is no two trademarks, and there is no figure and Roman, but the original trademark refers to the Korean language sound of "Sain Andre," while the original trademark refers to the original trademark "Sain" as the original trademark "Sain", because it indicates its respect, and the original trademark is called and conceptualized as "bre" or "Kim", and it cannot be deemed that the cited trademark is an integral combination of the parts "Adre" and thus, it cannot be seen that the cited trademark is called and conceptualized as "hin" or "hind" and all two trademarks are conceptualized as "hind trademark," and it cannot be viewed as identical or similar to the trademark registered as "hind trademark," and therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and justifiable in light of the legal principles of the former Trademark Act, and there is no error in the conclusion that two trademarks are identical or similar to consumers.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)