[2] The meaning of the designated goods requiring the determination of similarity of trademarks

[2] Whether a trademark is similar shall be determined on the basis of the average consumer's attention, taking into account the main demand class of the designated goods to be used and the trade situation of the goods, and the ordinary consumer includes both the final consumer as well as the intermediate consumer or the wholesale and retail store for the sale of the goods. Accordingly, marina prevention systems, green prevention systems, and anti-enciation systems, etc., which are the designated goods, cannot be said to be required or traded only by the experts engaged in the automobile maintenance business, etc., and they are directly demanded or traded by the general public. Thus, as long as there is no evidence to deem that all the designated goods are required or traded only by the experts engaged in the automobile maintenance business, etc., the determination of whether there is possibility of misconception or confusion between the places of goods shall be made on the basis of ordinary consumers.

According to the record, examining the similarity between the trademark applied in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "original trademark") "MLIT-1" and the trademark cited by another person (registration No. 14692) "MATRITEC" registered by the earlier application, both trademarks are similar in terms of concept since they are different in appearance, and all of them are in no meaning. However, the original trademark is a combination trademark composed of two letters, each of which is separated from appearance, and it cannot be said that they are not connected with each other and create new ideas through their combinations, so it can not be deemed that separate observation of each of the parts can be separated and observed separately from nature so that it can be seen as a combination of two parts, and in such a case, it can be referred to as "tight text" in view of a trade situation in which other persons tend to represent the trademark rapidly and promptly, and it can be seen as being the same as "conscepting trademarks" as "conscepting trademarks," and it can be seen as being the same as "conscepting trademarks as the first one another and the two identical goods."

In the above purport, the decision of the court below that rejected the registration of the original trademark under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possibility of separate observation and observation through the essential part in determining the similarity of trademarks, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the overall decision based on the direct recognition of ordinary consumers as to the designated goods, in determining the similarity of trademarks, such as the theory of lawsuit, there is no error of law

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The similarity of a trademark shall be determined on the basis of the average consumer's attention, taking into account the main demand class of the designated goods for which the trademark is used and the trade situation of other goods, and the ordinary consumer includes not only the final consumer but also the intermediate consumer or the wholesale and retail for the sale of such goods. Thus, marina prevention systems, green prevention systems, and gold removal systems, etc., which are the designated goods in this case, cannot be said to be a demand or transaction only by the experts engaged in the automobile maintenance business, etc., and it is a trade society where the said goods are directly demanded or traded by the general public. Thus, as long as there is no evidence to deem that all the designated goods are required or traded only by the experts engaged in the automobile maintenance business, etc., the determination of whether there is a concern of misconception or confusion between the places of goods shall be made on the basis of ordinary consumers.

The argument that the similarity of the two trademarks should be determined based on their general perception that the designated goods of this case are traded only by the experts engaged in the automobile maintenance business, etc., or only by them are required to be determined based on their general perceptions cannot be accepted (In addition, even based on the perception of the above experts, the trademark of this case and the cited trademark are likely to be mistaken or confused with each other even based on the perception of the above experts). There is no reason

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)