[거절사정][공1990.3.15(868),532]
The case holding that "settlement device" as designated goods of the applied trademark and "electronic calculator" as designated goods of the cited trademark are similar goods.
The "settlement system", the designated goods of the applied trademark, is an electronic application machine that processes separate settlement of the current status of input and withdrawal, and the "electronic calculator", which is the designated goods of the cited trademark, is an electronic application machine that processes the input by the program and indicates or prints the results of processing through the screen of the device, and is somewhat different in terms of the classification and reading of money, but it is similar to the function and use in that it is a business automation facility used to enhance the efficiency of work at the bank or the accounting counter, and it is considered similar goods in view of the transaction circumstances in which both companies specializing in business automation machinery or specialized stores deal with the business.
Article 9(1)7 of the Trademark Act
Then, the Patent Attorney Kim Yoon-tae, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee)
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 628 No. 628 dated July 28, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the applicant's agent.
According to the original decision, the applicant's main trademark is a character trademark which is indicated as "GLORY" in English, and its composition is a trademark which is indicated as an electronic machine-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product-based product.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)