1.The determination upon whether two trademarks are similar shall be based on the entire impression of related consumers to the products, which means that whether the appearance, pronunciation or conception are similar, and cannot violate this “observation as a whole” rule by dissecting the trademark into separate parts (referring to Supreme Administrative Court decision No. 2002-Pan-1559). However, if a certain part of the trademark is more attractive and shows significant distinctiveness, the determination upon whether two trademarks are similar can be based on this part. It is different from simply dissecting and observing the parts of the trademark separately. (referring to Supreme Administrative Court decision No. 1984-Pan-1144) In the other words, although the trademark is present in the form of the entire reproduction, relevant consumers of the goods or services may only notice or be impressed by the more significant part of it. The significant part is considered the main part. Therefore, the rule of observing the main part is not necessarily in conflict with the rule of observing the trademark as a whole. The main part can make an entire impression on the consumers of the goods or services. The trademarks with high distinctiveness, especially the famous trademarks, can make a deep impression on the relevant consumers. If the trademark with high distinctiveness is a part of the entire trademark, the relevant consumers may still be impressed by the part with high distinctiveness deeply when watching the entire trademark. Consequently, this part can be considered the main part of the trademark.

The trademark, in this case, is the term “Koradior” without design. The “dior” part of it is identical to the plaintiff’s trademark. It has alphabets with no pattern design, and the alphabets is identical to those of the plaintiff’s trademarks, which have no pattern design. Furthermore, the term “Kora” has no special meaning. The trademark at issue, consisting of the terms “Kora” and “dior,” has caused that “dior,” the significant part, made a deep impression on relevant consumers. The consumers might identify the trademark at issue by noticing the term “dior” of it. Therefore, the term “dior” is the main part of the trademark at issue based on observation of the trademark as a whole. The appearance, pronunciation or conception of the main part “dior” of the trademark at issue is similar to those of the plaintiff’s trademark. Through the “different time and places” observation method, the impression which the two trademarks give to consumers is not so different. Thus, the two trademarks are highly similar.

Famous trademark, Significant distinctiveness, Main part