The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In principle, the similarity of combined trademarks consisting of two or more letters or diagrams should be determined on the basis of the overall appearance, name, and concept of their constituent parts. However, if there is an essential part, in order to induce the conclusion of appropriate observation, it is necessary to compare the similarity of trademarks with the essential part in order to determine the similarity of trademarks.

In addition, whether the part of a trademark is essential or not shall be determined based on the elements such as whether the part is well-known or highly raised among ordinary consumers, and whether the part constitutes a high weight in the entire trademark. However, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account the degree of relative distinctiveness compared to other parts, its combination and degree, the relationship with the designated goods, and the transaction circumstances.

(2) In determining whether a trademark has no or weak distinctiveness that can function as an essential part of a combined trademark, the following should be considered: (a) the number of trademarks registered or announced publicly, the number of applicants or trademark right holders; (b) the degree of intrinsic distinctiveness of the relevant constituent part; (c) the relationship between the designated goods and the designated goods; and (d) the existence of circumstances in which it is deemed inappropriate to allow a specific person to monopoly on a specific person in light of the public interest.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu932, Mar. 9, 2017). 2. We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.

A. The registered trademark of this case (trademark No. F) as indicated in the judgment of the court below is "," and the designated goods are "the designated goods."