[2] The applied trademark "" is a prior registered trademark

The case holding that the applied trademark cannot be deemed a trademark falling under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that there is little possibility that it may cause mistake or confusion as to the place of origin of goods by ordinary consumers or traders, even though it is used in the same or similar designated goods as the designated goods identical or similar to the "", because it is sense that it is a single word with an integrated and limited meaning, and it is unlikely that it can be separated only by the "ROCKT".

[2] The applied trademark "" is a prior registered trademark

The case holding that even if the part of " " " " and "" and "RCET are similar to each other, in light of the proportion of these trademarks, the degree and location of the combinations with other components, and the overall composition, form, and concept of these trademarks, the trademark applied for registration cannot be deemed as a trademark falling under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, even if the trademark applied for registration is used as the designated goods identical or similar to the prior registered trademark, even if it is unlikely that " " "" can be separated and recognized as a single word having a limited meaning, and the trademark applied for registration is used as the same or similar to the designated goods identical or similar to the prior registered trademark, it is difficult to say that there is a possibility of misconception or confusion as to the origin of the goods, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a trademark falling under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's applied trademark

(1) Date/application number: August 27, 2007 / No. 40-2007-04545

2) Composition:

3) Designated goods: “Toy for pet animals, toy for pet animals, labels for Ccemast, multimon game equipment, fishing times, high direction bars, etc.,” etc. (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s applied trademark”).

(b) Preregistered trademark;

(i) the Prior Registered Trademark 1

(A) Date of application/registration date/Renewal/Renewal of registration: January 11, 1991/ February 11, 1992/ April 8, 2002/No. 23022

B) Composition:

C) Designated goods (the goods converted into the classification of goods on May 28, 2002): “printk” in Category 2 of the product category, and “public books, Kafin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin fin

D) Person entitled to registration: Loat batteries, Inc.

(ii) the Prior Registered Trademark 2

(A) Date of application/registration date/registration number: January 14, 1999/ January 24, 200/ No. 463616/

B) Composition:

C) Designated goods: “Toy for pet animals, Crisast labelling labelling labellings, locking originals for divings, pedagogs, skiing strings, Damond game equipment, fishing times, high-level command sealings” in Chapter 28 of the classification of goods.

D) Person entitled to registration: Croit Electric Co., Ltd.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

1) On August 19, 2008, the Korean Intellectual Property Office examiner decided to the effect that the trademark of this case is similar to the prior registered trademark 1 in relation to some designated goods, such as “insectation of insects” and its marks, and that part of the designated goods, such as “toy for pet animals, ccemast level, multimon game equipment, fishing age, and high-level command bars, etc., are similar to the prior registered trademark 2 and its marks, pursuant to Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act, the trademark of this case cannot be registered.

2) On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the decision of refusal, and the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on the grounds that the trademark applied in this case, like the above decision of refusal, is similar to 1, etc. of the prior registered trademark relating to certain designated goods, such as “insectation” and its mark.

2. Whether the trademark of this case constitutes Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act

A. Whether the trademark of this case is separated and recognizable only by the "ROCKT"

1) Legal principles

The similarity of trademarks shall be determined based on whether there is a concern for ordinary consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of the designated goods in the transaction of the designated goods by observing the external appearance, name, and concept objectively, comprehensively, and systematically, and on the basis of the direct perception that ordinary consumers or traders feel about the trademark. Thus, even if there is a similar part between the compared trademarks, if it is unlikely that the part alone may be separated or recognizable may cause confusion about the origin clearly when observing the whole part, it cannot be deemed a similar trademark (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Hu3557, May 11, 2007; 2008Hu4783, Apr. 9, 2009).

2) Determination

According to the evidence No. 9, No. 9, and No. 3 (including the virtual number), the trademark of this case is composed of the main English alphabbsian, and the English alphabsian, with no word being searched as a whole in the English language of NAV, an Internet portal site, and the term “ROCKT” among these words means “rogate, chemical shot, shot, strawing, and strawing fireworks,” etc., and “BOY” is searched as the term “age”, and the English language ending as “boy” in the above NA English language is an English language, meaning “pyo”, “bally”, “bally”, “gym”, “gym”, “gym”, and “gym”, meaning as “gym,” “gym,” and “gymma,” which means “gym,” “gym.,” and “gym.,”

In full view of the circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., the English language ending as “boy” means “a man or juvenile of any character.” ② At the time of the application for the trademark of this case, the trademark of this case was expressed in one word without being kept, “ASTRBOY” was registered as the designated goods, and the trademark of this case is different from its designated goods, “USSBOY” means the mark (designated goods: mother and child, etc.), “Crazboy” means the mark (designated goods: zy: zyboy), “OEBY” means the mark (designated goods: farming equipment, etc.) and “WONDERBY” as a trademark of this case. In full view of the circumstances that the trademark of this case was expressed in one word without being kept in one word, the trademark of this case can be seen as a “OTRBY” as a “general consumer or customer”, and the trademark of this case can be seen as a “OTRBY” as a “public” and it can be deemed as a “K”.

B. Whether the mark is similar

1) Preparation for appearance

The applied trademark of this case is a text trademark consisting of Hobbebbebbeb, a Locket, a Locket, and a text trademark consisting of three persons, a text trademark consisting of three persons, a English alphab, and a text trademark consisting of five persons, a text trademark of a small text, or a word "roat", which differs from the appearance of both trademarks, depending on the number of characters and whether a large text, etc. is different.

(ii) preparation for a title;

The pending trademark of this case is referred to as "ro pockets" (the "ro pockets" is to be referred to as "ro pockets" rather than as "ro pockets", because the trademark of this case is to be referred to as "ro pockets". The registered trademark of this case is to be referred to as "ro pockets" and to be referred to as "ro pockets" and to be referred to as "ro pockets" or "roats" as a whole and to be different in whole.

3) Preparation for concept

While the pending trademark of this case is conceptualized as the "Juveniles with the characteristics of the log pockets and the log pockets", the pre-registered trademark is conceptualized as the "ro pockets", the pre-registered trademark is conceptualized as the "ro pockets," the two trademarks are different from each other in terms of concepts.

(iv)Preparation results

Ultimately, both trademarks are not similar in terms of appearance, name, and concept.

C. Whether the designated goods are similar

The designated goods of the applied trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark 1 include “insect seed gathering” or “insect secting”. The designated goods of the applied trademark of this case and the prior registered trademark 2 include the same “toy for pet animals, crymast labelling labelling labels, multimon game equipment, fishing times, and anti-secting bars,” etc. As such, some of the designated goods of both trademarks are similar or identical.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, even if the applied trademark of this case and the pre-registered trademark are similar to each other in the part of the “RCET,” in light of the portion of the “ROCKT” in relation to these trademarks, the degree and location of the combinations with other components, and the overall composition, form, and concept of these trademarks, etc., even if the trademark of this case is used as the designated goods identical or similar to the pre-registered trademark, it is difficult to deem that there is a concern for general consumers or traders to mislead or confuse the origin of the goods. Thus, the trademark of this case cannot be deemed as a trademark falling under Article 7(1)7 of the Trademark Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, registration of the applied trademark of this case shall not be rejected on the ground that it falls under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act, and the decision of this case is unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Tae (Presiding Judge)