결합상표의 유사판단기준에 관한 연구

The Korean Intellectual Property Office and Japanese Patent Office determine the similarity of trademarks by their appearance, sound, and meaning so, if one of the criteria is similar to others and cause misconceive·confusion of their origin, it is determined as a similar trademark. In the case of SEICO EYE, the supreme court of Japan judged similarity of composite marks by focusing on likelihood of confusion of products’ origin to traders and consumers. Furthermore, the court judged that there is no likelihood of confusion despite of similar appearance,sound, and meaning formally of trademarks in the Kozou case. OHIM and ECJ, however, focus on likelihood of confusion when they determine similarity of marks and American courts employ likelihood of confusion and dilution as the criteria of similarity judgement. This presents that United Stats judge similarity of marks by likelihood of confusion and dilution. Similarity criterions of composite marks are appearance, sound, and meaning. Moreover, the criterions also determine; if the combined parts are recognized as a whole because they are aligned inseparably; and if both marks are used on similar products,consumers would be confused and misinterpret their origin. Object judgement has its significance in applying mass observation principles instead of separate observation on composite marks and determining similarity of marks by consumer’s confusion or misinterpretation of product’s origin when the marks are used on similar products. Similarity of marks has larger possibility to cause confusion if products or services are similar in competition. Therefore, the similarity judgement of composite marks must primarily consider their appearance,sound, and meaning but other confusion of origin should be considered as well. The judgement on using whether separate observation or mass observation in judicial precedents affects the verdict of the court. The recent issue of famous mark’s protection and prevention of dilution claims a fundamental reappraisal on mark protection. Thus, it is required to consider Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, TLT, Agreement on TRIPs, Lanham Act, and CTM Act in order to secure consistency on likelihood of confusion, dilution prevention, and similarity judgements.