[상표등록무효][공1991.2.15.(890),639]
Whether this trademark “” and the cited trademark “(1)” and “(2)” are similar (affirmative)
The trademark “” is a combination of characters and diagrams and the quoted trademark “(1) is a combination trademark of characters and diagrams. (2) The trademark “” is a trademark of this kind, and the cited trademark is a trademark of this kind. The cited trademark(1) is called “Kenyan”, and the quoted trademark(2) is called “Kenyan”, and the quoted trademark is called “Kenyan” and the quoted trademark is deemed to be the same as “Kenyan”, and the trademark in the modern trade society where “Kenya” in the two sides need to be simple and swift, the trademark or a series of cited trademarks are called as one word or short, and in particular, it is similar to the case where the above trademarks are called as “Kenya”, and the trademark of this case is referred to as “K” and the trademark of this case is likely to be mistaken as “K” in English, and thus, the trademark of this case is referred to as “K 1” in the English language and thus, the trademark of this case is referred to as “K 1” in the English language and thus, the trademark of this case is referred to as “K 1” in English.
Article 9 (1) of the former Trademark Act (amended by Act No. 4210 of Jan. 13, 1990)
Supreme Court Decision 90Hu1161 delivered on January 13, 1990
Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Attorney Park Jong-gil, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 166 Dated January 31, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the original decision, the court below held that the trademark " "" is a combination of characters and diagrams, and the quoted trademark (1) " "" is a combination trademark of characters and diagrams, and (2) as it is the trademark "," and the cited trademark (1) "Kenyan" and the quoted trademark (2) "Kenyan" are referred to as "Kenyan" and the quoted trademark "Kenyan" are referred to as "Kenyan," and the quoted trademark (2) "Kenyan" and the cited trademark is not a combination of two words in modern trade society where simple and swiftness is required, the court below's decision that the trademark "" and the quoted trademark "I" are not a combination of characters and diagrams, and there are many cases where "I" and "I" of the cited trademark "I" and "I" of the cited trademark "I" are similar to "I" in English, so it is not a case where "I" is referred to as "I" and "I" of the cited trademark "I" in the English language, and it is not a case where the above trademark is referred to as "I".".
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)