[거절사정][공1995.11.1.(1003),3535]
(a) Whether the trademark “GINKBA” and “Recoin, GINKO” and “Recoin” are similar;
(b) Consumer floor which serves as a standard for determining whether there is likelihood of mistake or confusion between pharmaceutical trademarks;
A. The appearance of this original trademark “GINKBA” and the cited trademark “GINKBA” and the cited trademark “GINGKO” are different from each other, but in the title, the original trademark is referred to as “Recoin.” In such a case, there are only differences between the cited trademark and the first 2 drinking out of 3 drinking, the difference between the two drinking out of 3 drinking, the absence of “F” in the last drinking, and the minor difference between “f” and “b” and “b” in the last drinking. Since the fact that the two parts are strongly discovered and perceived in the words in different drinking, the original trademark and the cited trademark appear to be similar in our general trade society, and the cited trademark are perceived as banking trees in terms of concept, and all the remaining trademarks are not likely to cause any particular concept as a whole, and thus, the goods are likely to cause confusion among the general consumers, consumers, traders, or consumers of medicines, and the designated goods are used in the same way as the designated goods are used in the same kind of goods.
B. At present, in our country, all medicines are not always required or traded only by doctors, pharmacists, etc., and many medicines are being directly required or traded by the general public, and only some of the special medicines are required and traded by the doctors, pharmacists, etc., and thus, the determination of whether there is a possibility of mistake or confusion between the two trademarks based on the general consumers, unless there is any evidence that deeming them to constitute such special medicines as above, should be made.
Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act
A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 94Hu111 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2239). Supreme Court Decision 95Hu316 delivered on June 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 258), Supreme Court Decision 95Hu46 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2809) B. Supreme Court Decision 94Hu180 delivered on May 27, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1841)
소시에떼 드 꽁세이으 드 르세르세에 다쁠리까시옹 시앙띠피끄 소송대리인 변호사 이재후외 2인
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 93Na1735 Dated January 28, 1995
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The First Ground for Appeal
According to the records, the similarity between the trademark "GINKBA" and the cited trademark (1) "GINKO" and the cited trademark (2) "GINGKO" and the cited trademark (2), and the appearance of the original trademark and the cited trademark are different. However, in a name, the original trademark is referred to as "Recoin", and in such a case, the first two of the quoted trademarks is identical to the cited trademark, and there is no "Recoin" in the last part, and there is only a small difference between the cited trademark and the cited trademark, and the second two of the three of the three of the three of the three of the three of the three of the three of the two, and there is no "F" and the "b". Since the two of the words are a language in the general trade society of our country, it seems that the cited trademark and the cited trademark are in a similar negative calendar, and there is no concern that the trademark might be used as a bank trademark and the remaining trademarks may not be mistaken for the designated goods of this case as a whole or a similar general consumer in the two of the two of this case.
In the above purport, the lower court’s decision that deemed the original decision rejecting the registration of the original trademark is justifiable, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the similarity of trademarks alleged in the arguments. The precedents cited in the arguments are different from those in this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked. There is no reason to argue.
The Second Ground of Appeal
At present, all medicines in our country are not necessarily required or traded by doctors, pharmacists, etc., and many medicines are being directly demanded or traded by the general public, and only several special medicines are required and traded by doctors, pharmacists, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Hu111, Jul. 29, 1994). Since there is no evidence that the circular agency medicine, animal medicine, etc., designated goods of the trademark of this case, as the designated goods of the trademark of this case, can be seen as those of the above special drugs, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Trademark Act or incomplete deliberation, as discussed in the decision of the court below that held that there is a concern for confusion between the two trademarks based on the general consumers. There is no reason to present this issue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)