동물모양의 도형과 문자를 결합한 상표의 유사 여부에 관한 판단 기준

Most often than not, general consumers are given the impression that two or more letters and figures comprising a combined trademark are different. In other words, when letters and figures differ in terms of appearance, name, and concept, determining similarity with other marks is difficult. In particular, if a figure is an ordinary shape of an animal that is widely used and a number of similar animal-shaped trademarks have been registered in relation to the designated product before filing a registered trademark, the emerging issue pertains to whether that animal shape may be deemed an essential part. In Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu2697 Decided March 29, 2018, the Supreme Court held that determination as to whether a component of a combined trademark exhibits distinctiveness to function as an essential part ought to be made by taking into account “whether combined trademarks related to a product that is identical or similar to a designated product have been registered on multiple occasions.” In the subject case, the figure of the registered trademark is merely a representation of “the figure depicting the left side of a standing dog” using an ordinary method, and thus, cannot be deemed an essential part on the ground that said figure does not exhibit strong distinctiveness in terms of creativity and well-knownness. Moreover, in contrast to determining the similarity between two combined trademarks, the determination of the similarity between “a combined trademark consisting of letters and figures” and “a trademark comprising only of a figure” ought to be based on the degree of distinctiveness and similarity of the figure at issue. That being said, the subject case is significant in that it provides the criteria for determining the similarity of trademarks that include animal shapes.