In cases where the part constituting the essential part is similar, whether the entire trademark is similar (affirmative)

Even if there are different parts between trademarks, it should be viewed as similar trademark that may cause mistake and confusion when comprehensively observing the parts that form the essential part as a whole.

Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act

Attorney Ba-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee-Appellee-Law Firm Han-dong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Law Firm Han-dong et al.

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office Decision 87Da301 dated July 25, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the attorney of the respondent.

In determining whether a trademark falls under Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act, the issue of whether two trademarks used for the same or similar goods are similar to one another shall be determined based on whether there is a concern for general consumers or consumers to mislead or confuse the origin of goods in light of the trade norms by observing objectively, comprehensively, and differently from their appearance, name, and concept in terms of their appearance, name, and concept. Even if there are different parts between trademarks, it shall be deemed as similar trademarks that are similar to those which form the essential part and are likely to cause mistake or confusion in the overall observation.

The court below determined that the registered trademark of the respondent is null and void as it is registered in violation of the provisions of Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act, on the ground that the two trademarks are identical or similar to each other in terms of concept or name, and if they are used in the same or similar goods, it is likely for ordinary consumers or consumers to mislead or cause confusion as to the origin of goods, and thus, the registered trademark of the respondent is null and void as they are registered in violation of the provisions of Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

According to relevant evidence and records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be viewed that there is any error such as the theory of lawsuit in the original decision, and there is no reason to discuss it.

The Supreme Court Decision 86Hu180,181 Decided August 18, 1987, which cited the theory as a precedent, is not appropriate to be invoked in this case due to the different cases.

Therefore, the appeal by the respondent 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 judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)