[1] Method of determining similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether trademark "SKYAT" and "SKY" are similar (negative)

Switzerland

[1] In determining similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by observing the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark as a whole and separately from the standpoint of consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if the trademark can clearly mislead or confuse the origin, it shall not be deemed similar.

[2] As to the similarity of the principal trademark and the cited trademark “SKY”, diagrams and diagrams

Switzerland

The term "SKYAT", which is a combination trademark of characters, is not a small and unique form, and therefore it is not in itself. The term "SKY", as well as the general term widely used, such as "never, public", and as to the designated goods of the category 39 that belongs to the designated goods of the original trademark, such as "SYARK", "SYARK", "NWSK", "NWSK", "SYK", and other similar terms, which are similar to the original trademark, are registered as "SYAT", "SYAT", "SYAT", "SGE", "SGGGE", "SGGGT", "SGGGGGGR", "SGGGGGRR", "SGGGGGGR", and thus, there is no objective distinction between the general consumers and the general consumers as to the designated goods of the original trademark, and therefore no such term "YYGK" or general consumers as "YK"," are referred to the designated goods.

[1] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Hu1494 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1404) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2515 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2620) Supreme Court Decision 95Hu57 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2591)

Large Social Promotion (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Decision 94Na1798 dated November 28, 1995

The decision of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney of the applicant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that the trademark of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") is a combination trademark of diagrams and letters, and the part of the word "SKYSAT" is expanded compared to the figure, and thus, it can be briefly abbreviationd into "SKY", which is a kind of friendly word, rather than always called "SkY". Thus, if the trademark is abbreviationd or conceptualized only by "Ska", the name and concept are identical or similar to those of the cited trademark (trademark No. 1 omitted) so that both trademarks are similar, and therefore, if both trademarks are used in the same designated goods, it is likely to mislead or confuse ordinary consumers or traders, and therefore, the decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark is justified.

However, in determining the similarity of trademarks, the similarity of trademarks shall be determined by observing the external appearance, name, and concept in general and separately from the perspective of consumers to mislead or confuse the source of goods. Thus, even if one of the external appearance, name, and concept is similar, if it is possible for consumers to clearly mislead or confuse the source of goods, it shall not be deemed similar (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Hu57, Jun. 30, 1995; 95Hu1494, Mar. 22, 1996).

Therefore, according to the records, the term "SYAT", which is an essential part of the original trademark, is small in size and is not in an exceptional form, and it is not in itself. The term "SKY", as well as the general term widely used, "SY", as well as the general term "SY", "SK", "SYARK", "NWSK", "NSK", "NWSK", and "SYINE", similar to the original trademark and the original trademark, are registered as "SYAT", "SYAT", "SIE", "SGGE", "SIE", "SGGK", "SGK", and thus, the term is not so defined as "SYGK", "general consumers or traders", and thus, the term is not so defined as "YYGK", "IYGK", "KK", and thus, is not so defined.

Therefore, if the main trademark and the cited trademark are observed in the whole, objective, and separation from the perspective of ordinary consumers, their appearance, name, and concept are different from each other. Therefore, even if both trademarks are used in a thickness on the designated goods identical or similar to the same or similar trademarks, there is no concern for ordinary consumers to mislead or confuse the source of goods. However, the court below held that there is a concern for misconception or confusion about the source of goods among ordinary consumers on the premise that the main trademark is called "SKY" in such a case on the premise that the name and concept are the same as those of the cited trademark, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the similarity of trademarks, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the decision, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Appeal Trial Office for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)