Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Comparing a distinctive part of a combined mark with the registered mark
Supreme Court, Nov. 20, 2025, 2024Do8174 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 상표법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defendant advertised a lipstick as 'CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick' under a registered mark whose designated goods include lipstick, must the court first identify the distinctive parts of the used mark and compare at least one of them with the registered mark before holding the marks dissimilar?
Holding
It could not. A combined mark is judged in principle as a whole, but where a part of it independently performs the function of indicating the source, that distinctive part must first be compared with the other mark. Here the CATALIC, Narcisse and Nudism parts were each distinctive, the English spelling and the pronunciation nudism of the Nudism part matched the registered mark, and since the goods were identical or similar, use on lipstick was likely to cause confusion as to source.
Points at issue, verbatim
사용상표의 ‘CATALIC’ 부분, ‘Narcisse’ 부분, ‘Nudism’ 부분은 모두 요부에 해당하고, 등록상표인 ‘’과 사용상표의 요부 중 하나인 ‘Nudism’ 부분을 서로 대비하면 글자체 등에 다소 차이가 있을 뿐 영문 부분의 철자가 동일하여 외관이 유사하고 호칭이 모두 ‘누디즘’으로 동일하므로 등록상표와 사용상표는 표장이 유사하며
Unofficial English translation
The 'CATALIC' part, the 'Narcisse' part, and the 'Nudism' part of the used trademark all constitute material parts, and comparing the registered trademark '' with the 'Nudism' part, one of the material parts of the used trademark, there are merely some differences in typeface and the like, but the spelling of the English-letter portion is identical, so that the appearance is similar, and the pronunciations are identical as 'Nudism' in both, and therefore the registered trademark and the used trademark are similar in their indications,
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
상표의 어느 구성 부분이 요부인지 여부는 그 부분이 주지·저명하거나 일반 수요자에게 강한 인상을 주는 부분인지, 전체 상표에서 높은 비중을 차지하는 부분인지 등의 요소를 따져 보되, 여기에 다른 구성 부분과 비교한 상대적인 식별력 수준이나 그와의 결합상태와 정도, 지정상품과의 관계, 거래실정 등까지 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether any constituent part of a trademark constitutes its material part must be determined by examining such factors as whether that part is well-known or prominent or leaves a strong impression on ordinary consumers, and whether the part accounts for a high proportion of the whole trademark, and in addition, the relative level of distinctiveness compared with other constituent parts, the state and degree of combination therewith, the relationship with the designated goods, trade circumstances, etc. must be comprehensively considered as well.
Factors
- 상표의 구성 부분 중 요부가 있는 경우
- 사용상표의 ‘CATALIC’ 부분, ‘Narcisse’ 부분, ‘Nudism’ 부분은 모두 요부에 해당하고
- 글자체 등에 다소 차이가 있을 뿐 영문 부분의 철자가 동일하여 외관이 유사하고 호칭이 모두 ‘누디즘’으로 동일하므로
- 등록상표의 지정상품인 립스틱 등과 사용상표의 사용상품인 립스틱은 상품이 동일·유사하여
- 일반 수요자나 거래자로 하여금 상품의 출처에 관하여 오인·혼동을 일으키게 할 염려가 있다는
Unofficial English translation
• Where a material part exists among the constituent parts of a trademark
• The 'CATALIC' part, the 'Narcisse' part, and the 'Nudism' part of the used trademark all constitute material parts, and
• there are merely some differences in typeface and the like, but the spelling of the English-letter portion is identical, so that the appearance is similar, and the pronunciations are identical as 'Nudism' in both, and therefore
• the designated goods of the registered trademark, lipstick, etc., and the goods on which the used trademark is used, lipstick, are identical or similar goods, and
• there is a concern that it may cause ordinary consumers or traders to mistake or be confused as to the source of the goods
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 2. 9. 선고 2015후1690 판결(공2017상, 591), 대법원 2018. 8. 30. 선고 2017후981 판결, 대법원 2024. 10. 25. 선고 2023후11180 판결(공2024하, 1891)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu1690 decided February 9, 2017 (Gong 2017 Sang, 591), Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu981 decided August 30, 2018, Supreme Court Decision 2023Hu11180 decided October 25, 2024 (Gong 2024 Ha, 1891)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 2. 9. 선고 2015후1690 판결(공2017상, 591), 대법원 2018. 8. 30. 선고 2017후981 판결, 대법원 2024. 10. 25. 선고 2023후11180 판결(공2024하, 1891)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the same words had been printed in a single line at one size, would the Court still have found that CATALIC alone was not the part that impressed ordinary consumers?
A remand judgment that examines Defendant 1's intent to infringe after finding the marks similar would show how the rule works in practice. A later decision redefining what counts as a distinctive part, or an amendment to Article 108(1)(i) of the Trademark Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings record burden as not mentioned, so the axis 4 flag may come from a mapping mismatch. The only visible difference is that the independent reading raises criminal intent as an open point, which could be read as a burden-related question.
사용상표의 ‘CATALIC’ 부분, ‘Narcisse’ 부분, ‘Nudism’ 부분은 모두 요부에 해당하고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the same words had been printed in a single line at one size, would the Court still have found that CATALIC alone was not the part that impressed ordinary consumers?” vs Independent “Did the representative director have the intent required for criminal trademark infringement?”
The primary asks whether the Court would still have found CATALIC alone impressive if the words were in one line at one size, which concerns the dominant-part analysis. The independent asks whether the representative director had criminal intent, which the primary does not raise.
사용상표의 ‘CATALIC’ 부분, ‘Narcisse’ 부분, ‘Nudism’ 부분은 모두 요부에 해당하고, 등록상표인 ‘’과 사용상표의 요부 중 하나인 ‘Nudism’ 부분을 서로 대비하면 글자체 등에 다소 차이가 있을 뿐 영문 부분의 철자가 동일하여 외관이 유사하고 호칭이 모두 ‘누디즘’으로 동일하므로 등록상표와 사용상표는 표장이 유사하며Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 10 May 2024 (2023No607), held that the mark the defendants used had to be identified as 'CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick' rather than 'Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick', and that its distinctive part was CATALIC, not Nudism. Comparing CATALIC with the registered mark, it found the marks dissimilar, held the crime unproven, reversed the first-instance judgment convicting the defendants and acquitted them.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the lower court's reasoning could not be accepted. The CATALIC, Narcisse and Nudism parts were each distinctive, and nothing showed that only CATALIC impressed itself on ordinary consumers merely because it appeared in capitals or that the parts functioned only as one combined unit. Since the Court could not accept the conclusion that the marks were dissimilar, it reversed the judgment for misapplying the law on trademark infringement, and because the appellate court had not examined Defendant 1's intent, it remanded the case.
Distinguishing conditions
- A combined mark with no part capable of independently indicating the source, since the whole of the mark must then be compared.
- A mark whose distinctive part differs in spelling and in pronunciation from the registered mark, so that neither appearance nor name matches.
- A case in which the designated goods of the registered mark and the goods actually used are unrelated, so that no likelihood of confusion as to source arises.
Record verification notes
Set out the used mark exactly as it was displayed, including how the words were laid out in the advertisement, since the Court relied on the four-line presentation here. Then mark off each part and record what it means and whether it suggests the quality or use of the goods, and compare the registered mark with at least one distinctive part of the used mark, such as Nudism, rather than with the whole expression. Finally, ask what remained for the court below to decide, since the case went back without any finding on the defendant's intent.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 둘 이상의 문자 또는 도형의 조합으로 이루어진 결합상표의 유사 여부를 판단하는 기준 / 상표의 구성 부분 중 요부가 있는 경우, 상표의 유사 여부를 판단하는 방법 [2] 화장품 제조판매업 등을 영위하는 피고인 갑 주식회사의 대표이사인 피고인 을이 피해자 병 주식회사의 등록상표인 ‘’과 유사한 ‘누디즘 홀릭 매트 립스틱’이라는 상표가 기재된 립스틱을 오픈마켓을 통해 ‘CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick’으로 광고하면서 불상량을 판매, 보관하여 병 회사의 상표권을 침해하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 병 회사 등록상표의 표장은 ‘’이고 지정상품은 립스틱, 마스카라 등이며, 피고인들 사용상표의 표장은 ‘CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick’이고 사용상품은 립스틱인 점 등 제반 사정을 종합하면, 사용상표의 ‘CATALIC’ 부분, ‘Narcisse’ 부분, ‘Nudism’ 부분은 모두 요부에 해당하고, 등록상표인 ‘’과 사용상표의 요부 중 하나인 ‘Nudism’ 부분을 서로 대비하면 글자체 등에 다소 차이가 있을 뿐 영문 부분의 철자가 동일하여 외관이 유사하고 호칭이 모두 ‘누디즘’으로 동일하므로 등록상표와 사용상표는 표장이 유사하며, 등록상표의 지정상품인 립스틱 등과 사용상표의 사용상품인 립스틱은 상품이 동일·유사하여 등록상표와 표장이 유사한 사용상표를 립스틱에 사용할 경우 일반 수요자나 거래자로 하여금 상품의 출처에 관하여 오인·혼동을 일으키게 할 염려가 있다는 이유로, 이와 달리 사용상표가 등록상표와 유사하지 않다고 보아 피고인들에게 무죄를 선고한 원심판결에 상표권 침해에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criterion for determining similarity of a composite trademark consisting of a combination of two or more letters or figures / The method of determining similarity of trademarks where a material part exists among the constituent parts of a trademark [2] In a case where the defendant B, the representative director of the defendant A Corporation engaged in the cosmetics manufacturing and sale business, etc., was prosecuted on the charge that, while advertising through an open market as 'CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick' a lipstick bearing the trademark 'Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick', which is similar to '' the registered trademark of the victim C Corporation, he sold and stored an unidentified quantity thereof, thereby infringing Company C's trademark right, where, considering the overall circumstances such as the fact that the indication of Company C's registered trademark is '' and the designated goods are lipstick, mascara, etc., and the indication of the trademark used by the defendants is 'CATALIC Narcisse Nudism Holic Matte Lipstick' and the goods on which it is used is lipstick, the 'CATALIC' part, the 'Narcisse' part, and the 'Nudism' part of the used trademark all constitute material parts, and comparing the registered trademark '' with the 'Nudism' part, one of the material parts of the used trademark, there are merely some differences in typeface and the like, but the spelling of the English-letter portion is identical, so that the appearance is similar, and the pronunciations are identical as 'Nudism' in both, and therefore the registered trademark and the used trademark are similar in their indications, and the designated goods of the registered trademark, lipstick, etc., and the goods on which the used trademark is used, lipstick, are identical or similar goods, so that where a used trademark similar in indication to the registered trademark is used on lipstick there is a concern that it may cause ordinary consumers or traders to mistake or be confused as to the source of the goods, the judgment of the court below, which found the used trademark not similar to the registered trademark and pronounced the defendants not guilty, is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles concerning trademark infringement
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상표법 제108조 제1항 제1호, 제230조 / [2] 상표법 제108조 제1항 제1호, 제230조, 제235조 제1호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger