[거절사정][공1984.11.1.(739),1653]
Whether the terms "HARIS" and "HARIG" are similar trademarks.
In comparison with the trademark "HARS" and the cited trademark "HARIG, both are composed of English characters, and the former is also used in the name of a person. Although the latter is a man who has no meaning, the latter cannot be deemed identical, the latter cannot be deemed to be clearly distinguishable from the latter due to its appearance or concept, and the latter is obviously unfavorable to the latter by the latter by the former by the terms "hore", and the latter by the latter by the latter by the terms "hor", both are three sound, which are the same as the first one by the latter by the latter, and the latter by the latter by the latter by the terms "hore", but the latter by the latter is also the same as the last by the latter by the latter, but the latter by the latter by the terms "hore" and the latter by the latter by the latter by the terms of the latter by the latter by the latter by the terms "h
Article 9 of the Trademark Act
Supreme Court Decision 80Hu18 Delivered on September 22, 1981
Esson Lexnz. Patent Attorney Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant
The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 470 No. 470 decided on December 27, 1983
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.
The ground of appeal by claimant's representative is examined.
In comparison with the "HARS" and the "HARIG" of this original trademark, both are composed of English languages. Although the former is used in human name, the latter is not identical, it cannot be said that the latter is not identical in terms of its appearance or concept, but it is difficult to view that the latter is obviously different in terms of its appearance or concept, and the latter is called the latter as the "RRS" and the latter is called the latter as the "mnautical miles", both are deemed to be the same as the first one and the second one, but the last one is the same as the last one, while the last one is the same as the last one.
Therefore, the original decision to the same effect is just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, since the two are similar to that that that to cause mistake or confusion when comprehensively observing the two. The precedents of the lawsuit are not appropriate in this case. The arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the claimant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)