[거절사정][공1993.9.1.(951),2147]
(a) Criteria for determining the similarity of trademarks in cases where parts of the trademark include ordinary names of designated goods, official marks, or technical marks, etc. among the components of the trademark;
(b) The case holding that the trademark applied for trademark " " " cannot be deemed as a technical mark related to the designated goods unrelated to the control function, such as gas meters, and can constitute an essential part of a trademark because it has a distinctive character of one's own goods, and thus, the cited trademark " " " is deemed as a trademark similar to the name, concept, and the same."
A. Even if there are similar parts between trademarks, the part constituting the essential part shall be deemed not to be a similar trademark unless it is likely to mislead or confuse the source of goods in the transaction as a whole, and the part indicated with an ordinary name, an official mark, or a technical mark of the designated goods in question, among the elements of trademarks, cannot be deemed to be an essential part of the trademark without distinguishing the designated goods from the other goods. Therefore, it is reasonable to observe only the remaining parts in determining the similarity of trademarks.
B. The case holding that the applied trademark " " cannot be deemed as a technical mark in relation to the designated goods unrelated to the operation function, such as gas meters, and can constitute an essential part of a trademark with the distinctiveness of the goods of the other goods, and thus, the applied trademark is deemed as a trademark similar in the same name as the cited trademark " "," and the concept.
Articles 8(1)3 and 9(1)7 of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)
A. Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1250 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992,287) (Gong1992,987). Supreme Court Decision 91Hu554 delivered on January 17, 1992 (Gong1992,904) 92Hu124 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992,2282) (Gong193,2145)
1. A patent attorney Kim Yoon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 1099 decided Dec. 19, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below affirmed the decision of the court below that since the original trademark " " " " and its appearance are the same as the cited trademark " " " "," the cited trademark " " and its appearance are below the upper and lower, and the original trademark "CONTRS" have the right to use the trademark as a trademark until it becomes final and conclusive by the trial decision, since it does not have any special meaning as a whole, and it does not seem to be an indivisible combination to the extent that it is natural that the separate observation of the above two words is not natural. Therefore, the original trademark can be recognized as "CONTRS", and in such a case, the above two trademarks are identical to the cited trademark "CONTRS" and the cited trademark "CONTRS" is identical to the cited trademark "," and even if the trademark is registered only with the mark indicating the nature of the designated goods in a common way, it is possible to confuse the original trademark with the original trademark so long as it becomes invalid until it becomes final and conclusive by the trial decision.
Even if there are similar parts between trademarks, it shall be deemed that the trademark is not a similar one unless there is a concern for misunderstanding or confusion with the source of goods in the transaction. If the part indicated with ordinary names of the designated goods or official marks or technical marks among the components of the trademark contains no distinctive character of other goods, it shall be reasonable to observe only the remaining parts (see Supreme Court Decision 91Hu1250 delivered on September 14, 192). However, since the determination of technical marks is relatively relatively prescribed in the relationship with the designated goods, the court below's determination of technical marks is not erroneous because "CONSS" which constitutes the latter part of the trademark " cannot be seen as having been used as an independent mark for the designated goods in relation to the designated goods," and it is not an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the designated goods of this case such as COS2, which constitutes an independent mark indicating the effect or use of the designated goods of this case, but it is not an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the designated goods of this case.
Therefore, the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)